Filter This View

  • Johnson v. Sunoco, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-13
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Surrick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0261

    The court denied one defendants motion to dismiss certain counts of plaintiffs complaint alleging negligence, battery and strict liability in an action based on exposure to benzene because plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim for battery by alleging that defendant supplied benzene-containing solvents that were incorporated into benzene-containing products and placed those solvents into the stream of com-merce without any warnings or precautions.

  • Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0230

    Trial court erred in denying a retrial after the Supreme Court overruled the jury charge in the case and established a new two-part defect test regarding defective products. Vacated.

  • Stange v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-06
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Elliot
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0117

    Defendant drug companies were not entitled to JNOV in plaintiffs failure to warn action because plaintiffs expert used a generally accepted scientific process to conclude that defendants drug caused plaintiffs gynecomastia, the trial court properly instructed the jury on combined negligence and properly refused to instruct the jury on plaintiffs future damages claim and the evidence fully supported the jurys decision but the coordinating judge erred in granting a global motion barring punitive damages claims. Affirmed in part, r

  • Siddoway v. GSK

    Publication Date: 2018-01-16
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Rufe
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0028

    Court granted drug manufacturers motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs could not meet their burden of showing proximate cause in their action for negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, breach of warranties and violation of Utahs consumer protection sales act based on manufacturers alleged failure to warn of the increased risk of heart attack from its drug. Motion granted.

  • In Re: Risperdal Litig.

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Panella
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1849

    Drug manufacturers entitled to statutory tort immunity under Michigans Product Liability Act, which provided immunity for any drug that had been approved by the FDA and continued to comply with that approval, regardless of whether the drug was subsequently prescribed off-label. Summary judgment affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Georgia Legal Malpractice Law 2024

    Authors: SHARI L. KLEVENS, ALANNA G. CLAIR

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re Risperdal Litig.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-28
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Evidence | Products Liability
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Panella
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1750

    Trial court erred in permitting fact witness to offer opinion without determining whether witness qualified as expert, where testimony offered sole alternative explanation for plaintiffs injury. Judgment reversed, case remanded.

  • Dunstan v. Bayer Essure, Inc

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Aerospace | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Padova
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1592

    Plaintiffs asserting breach of warranty claims in this suit were not required to allege the precise dates and locations where they encountered defendants warranties since the court required only sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the warranties were the bases of the parties bargain. The court denied in part defendants motion to dismiss.