NEXT
Sign in to follow

New Jersey Law Journal

3rd Circuit Calls for New Look at Class Certification in BMW Junk Fax Suit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has vacated a ruling denying class certification to persons complaining about junk faxes sent allegedly from the financing arm of BMW.
5 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

State Farm Can't Get Out of Stacking-Related Bad-Faith Claim

A Pennsylvania judge has denied insurance giant State Farm's bid to end a bad-faith lawsuit that alleges the company refused to reimburse a man who had been charged for stacking insurance coverage even though he owned only one vehicle.
11 minute read

The Recorder

Uber Hits Road Block in 'Privilege' Defense Over Google Car Files

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley has thrown a wrench into the company's plan to tell jurors that Anthony Levandowski may have had an innocent reason for downloading Google's data.
8 minute read

Daily Report Online

Lawyers Trade Volleys in Appeal of $150M Chrysler Verdict

As their battle heads to the Georgia Supreme Court, lawyers for the family of Remi Walden and the maker of the Jeep vehicle in which he died have filed briefs framing two dramatically different views of the same trial.
13 minute read

Daily Business Review

Class Action Lawsuit Claims Volkswagen CC Design Defect

Podhurst Orseck partner Roy Altman files a lawsuit in Miami federal court alleging a tire-wearing alignment defect in VW's luxury midsize sedans.
6 minute read

The Recorder

Alsup Likely to Remain in Driver's Seat in Uber Trade Secrets Case

Federal Circuit judges show little interest in steering dispute into arbitration.
15 minute read

The American Lawyer

Takata Parent's Bankruptcy Reveals Big Monthly Litigation Fees

Japanese auto parts giant Takata Corp., which followed its U.S. unit into a Delaware bankruptcy court this week, revealed in court documents that it is paying nearly $1 million per month in legal fees to an Am Law 100 firm advising it in product liability litigation over faulty air bags.
4 minute read

The Recorder

Jones v. Royal Administration Services, Inc.

9th Cir.; 15-17328 The court of appeals affirmed a judgment. The court held that because a telemarketing company acts as an independent contractor for…
2 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Should Vehicle Manufacturers Be Entitled to Apportionment of Liability?

Automobile manufacturers are legally obligated to design, build and sell vehicles that are crashworthy, as in Gaudio v. Ford Motor, 926 A. 2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal den., 989 A. 2d 917 (2010). Crashworthiness is the designed protection a vehicle affords occupants against injury or death in a collision, as in Harsh v. Petroll, 840 A.2d 404, 417-418 (Pa. Commwlth 2003). If a motorist or passenger is involved in a collision and she suffers enhanced injuries, the vehicle manufacturer will be liable for those injuries—if the producing harm was caused by a defective design, as in Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing, 876 A. 2d 978 (Pa. Super. 2005), aff'd. 592 Pa. 38 (2007). Before the 2011 amendments to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the tortfeasor causing the accident and the tortfeasor-manufacturer whose product enhanced the injuries were jointly and severally liable. Thus, if a jury found the offending driver 80 percent liable and the vehicle's faulty design 20 percent liable (for the purpose of perfecting a claim for contribution) for the enhanced injury, the victim could recover the full amount of the verdict from either party. However, in 2011, the legislature altered the common law and passed 42 Pa. C. S. 7102 (a.1) and (a.2) to establish several liability based upon jury apportionment of each defendant's liability, 42 Pa. C. S. 7102 (a.3) allows for joint and several status of a defendant found "not less than 60 percent" liable. The question that has not been addressed in connection with the doctrine of crashworthiness is whether apportionment of liability is appropriate when the plaintiff's harm is divisible or indivisible? As set forth below, the most logical answer is: no.
8 minute read

Daily Business Review

Ridesharing Legislation May Trigger New Wave of Litigation

On July 1, Florida legislators enacted a new law, Florida Statute Section 627.748, imposing new insurance requirements for ridesharing companies; and, provides for new requirements for auto insurance coverage that affect TNCs and personal auto insurance companies. The statute provides up to $1 million in coverage for those involved in an accident. With such high coverage at stake, auto insurance companies may be exposed to a new wave of litigation, write Cecile S. Mendizabal and Lisette M. Alvarez.
4 minute read

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources

  • The Role of Evolving Support Structures in Optimizing Legal Talent

    Brought to you by BigHand

    Download Now

  • Corporate Monitorship Advisory Services

    Brought to you by HaystackID

    Download Now

  • AI-Powered Deposition and Medical Record Summaries: Low Risk, High Reward

    Brought to you by Parrot

    Download Now

  • Aligning Client Needs with Lawyer Growth and Profitability

    Brought to you by BigHand

    Download Now