This month we discuss a product liability decision in which the Court of Appeals analyzed a defendant’s burden at the summary judgment stage in a defective design case, a matter arising under “Kendra’s Law,” in which the Court declined to adopt expansive interpretations of two exceptions to the Privacy Rule enacted pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and decisions in two criminal cases. In one, the Court rejected the argument that police failure to pursue potentially exculpatory evidence in the course of an investigation constitutes a Brady violation. In the other, it upheld a finding that defense counsel, by their silence, gave implied consent to a declaration of a mistrial.
Defective Design
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a strict liability case involving a product that is allegedly defectively designed and dangerous to the user, a defendant must do more than file the affirmation of its lawyer acknowledging that its product is inherently dangerous and asserting that such fact is well-known. This is made clear by the Court’s decision in Chow v. Reckitt & Colman Inc., a case involving “Lewis Red Devil Lye,” a chemical compound known as lye that was sold in the form of dry crystals to be used as directed in clearing clogged drains.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
