This article surveys recent decisions on three separate topics. First, does the sale of a complex product, such as an airplane, impose upon the manufacturer or seller a tort duty to train the user regarding risky conditions? Should lessons on use be embraced within the duty to warn? The Minnesota Supreme Court’s Glorvigen decision holds “No.” Second, could an ordinary automobile negligence case become a punitive damages nightmare leaving businesses exposed to uninsurable catastrophic liability? The New York Appellate Division’s June 27 decision in Quiroz v. Zottola seems to suggest this possibility and, therefore, deserves special attention.
Third, while most personal injury claims are said to cause waiver of the plaintiff’s physician-patient privilege and, thus, require issuance of authorizations for a claimant’s medical records, exactly what has to be produced is subject to advocacy. Courts could take a restrictive approach, as occurred in the Appellate Division’s July 18 decision in the Farkas case. Or “full disclosure” may be required, as occurred in the Appellate Division’s June 15 decision in Boyea v. Benz. The key seems to be what exactly has been put “in controversy.”
Training Lessons
This content has been archived.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]
