Product Liability

Decision

O'Dell v. Greenwich Healthcare Services Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, May 13, 2013

Even if a hospital pharmacy adds a charge when the hospital pharmacy bills a patient for medicine, the pharmacy may not qualify as a "product seller," for purposes of the Connecticut Product Liability Act.

Decision

Nazar v. Palli

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, April 29, 2013

Water that a landlord provides to a tenant pursuant to a lease may not qualify as a "product" that enters the stream of commerce, pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act.

Decision

Kost v. Avon Products Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, April 15, 2013

Expert testimony can be required to establish a prima facie case under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, if the alleged product defect is not clearly within the knowledge of an ordinary consumer.

Decision

Abate v. AAF McQuay Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, April 15, 2013

A manufacturer of a non-asbestos containing product that has many purposes and is intended for use in a variety of places may not owe a duty to warn about the hazards of asbestos.

Decision

Foster v. Bergson Tire Co. Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, March 11, 2013

Allegations that a defendant recapped a tire incorrectly are insufficient to state a cause of action under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, because recapping a tire qualifies as a service.

Product Liability and Toxic Tort

Monday, December 10, 2012

Defendants must designate knowledgeable officers to answer questions; state statute, common law weigh heavy in two key Conn. cases; justices to decide if lawsuits targeting overseas actions can be filed in federal court

News

Punitive Damage Limits In Product Liability Action

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, December 10, 2012  |  by KEVIN M. SMITH and JAMES O.CRAVEN

Appropriate limits to punitive damages awards in product liability actions have been the subject of great debate over the past few years. Most of the debate has focused on federal due process limitations in the wake of several important U.S. Supreme Court decisions that struck down large punitive damages awards as unconstitutional.

News

Environmental, Product Liability Litigation Under Alien Tort Statute

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, December 10, 2012  |  by DANIEL J. HERLIN, ERIC GOTTING, MICHELLE GILLETTE and LEILA QUTAMI

Your client, a chemical company, is doing business in a foreign country. It has a pesticide manufacturing facility located in a rural area and also sells its products for use on nearby, government-owned plantations. To its credit, the company's environmental practices have gotten better in recent years, but it has a history of disposing of hazardous wastes from the manufacturing process in a less than environmental-friendly manner, resulting in extensive contamination.

Decision

Thompson v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, November 26, 2012

For a product to qualify as "unreasonably dangerous" it must be dangerous to an extent beyond that contemplated by an ordinary consumer who purchases it, with ordinary knowledge about the product's characteristics.

Decision

White v. Mazda Motor Of America, Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, November 12, 2012

Although it is true that an ordinary consumer may, under certain circumstances, be able to form expectations as to the safety of a product, the Appellate Court consistently has held, as in its 2006 decision in Keeney v. Mystic Valley Hunt Club, Inc., that "expert testimony is required when the question involved goes beyond the field of the ordinary knowledge and experience of judges or jurors."