Tag Archives: Products Liability

Product Recall

Southwire Recalls Electrical Outlet Boxes


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On August 20, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Southwire Recalls Electrical Outlet Boxes Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he electrical receptacles can overheat when in use, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Pointing out a Problem

In Indiana, Component Manufacturers Have a Limited Duty to Equip Products with Safety Features


This entry was posted by on .

In reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment that found that a component manufacturer owed no duty to install safety features, the Supreme Court of Indiana answered a narrow question that shifts the landscape for product liability litigation pursuant to the Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA). Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc., 2019 Ind. LEXIS 428, involved a wrongful death claim against PACCAR, Inc. (PACCAR), the manufacturer of a glider kit that is installed on semi-trucks. The glider kit comes with a variety of optional safety features, provided they are specifically requested by the semi-truck manufacturer that integrates the kit into its end product. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Indiana, Products Liability and tagged , , .
Gavel

Superior Court Addresses Whether the Plaintiff Is the “Master of the Claim” in Post-Tincher Decision


This entry was posted by on .

Since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), parties proceeding in product liability cases in Pennsylvania often disagree about jury instructions. In Davis v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., No. 1405 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2763, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an unpublished opinion,[1] recently addressed whether the trial court gave proper jury instructions in a products liability case against Volkswagen entities, including Volkswagen Aktiengeselleschaft (Volkswagen). The court held that, despite a statement in Tincher that the plaintiff is the “master of the claim,” the trial court properly instructed the jury on both the consumer expectation test and the risk-utility test for establishing that the product at issue, a Volkswagen Passat, was in a defective condition. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Pennsylvania, Products Liability and tagged , , .
Pointing out a Problem

New York Court Takes the Bite Out of a Food Manufacturer’s Request for Destructive Testing


This entry was posted by on .

Although there are times when both parties agree on the need to perform destructive tests on an object, when the parties disagree, the party seeking the destructive tests must justify its request. In Doerrer v. Schreiber Foods, Inc., et al., No. 2017-08582, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743, the Second Department of the Supreme Court of New York’s Appellate Division recently explained what a defendant moving to secure destructive testing needs to show in order to perform the testing it seeks. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Food and Beverage, New York, Products Liability and tagged , , , .
Product Recall

Consumer Product Safety Commission Announces Multiple Fireworks Recalls


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On June 26, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to fireworks products that present explosion and burn hazards:

Grandma’s Fireworks Recalls Fireworks Due to Violation of Federal Standards; Explosion and Burn Hazards;

GS Fireworks Recalls Fireworks Due to Violation of Federal Standards; Explosion and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at GS Fireworks;

Patriot Pyrotechnics/Bill’s Fireworks Recalls Fireworks Due to Violation of Federal Standards; Explosion and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Patriot Pyrotechnics; and

Keystone Recalls G-Force Fireworks Due to Violation of Federal Standard; Explosion and Burn Hazards.

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Recall Alert

QTOP USA Recalls Led Work Light Replacement Bulbs


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On June 25, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

QTOP USA Recalls LED Work Light Replacement Bulbs Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he LED replacement bulbs can overheat due to an electrical malfunction, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Recall

Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls Honeywell Smoke Sensors and H.E. Industrial Electric Heaters


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On June 21, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire-related hazards:

Honeywell Recalls Gamewell-FCI and Notifier Photoelectric Smoke Sensors Sold with Fire Alarm Systems Due to Failure to Alert of a Fire;

H.E. Industrial Recalls Electric Garage Heaters Due to Fire Hazard.

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Recall Alert

Excel Industries Recalls Zero-Turn Mowers


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On May 30, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Excel Industries Recalls Zero-Turn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[a] wire tie underneath the seat could damage the fuel line, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Recall

Target Recalls USB Charging Cables


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On May 29, 2019, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Target Recalls USB Charging Cables Due to Shock and Fire Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he metal around the cord can become electrically charged if it contacts the USB wall charger plug prongs while charging, posing shock and fire hazards.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Recall Alert

Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls Products Due To Fire Hazards


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. Recently, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

Tween Brands Recalls Light Up Bed Canopies Due to Fire and Burn Hazards;

DAVIDsTEA Recalls Valentine’s Day Stackable Mugs Due to Fire Hazard.

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .