Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Product liability is the area of law in ... never attempted to adopt the doctrine, and the state legislature enacted a statute expressly banning strict liability for ...
The duty to warn arises in product liability cases, as manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by their products if the product causes an injury to a consumer and the manufacturer fails to supply adequate warnings about the risks of using the product (such as side effects from pharmacy prescriptions) or if they fail to supply ...
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, [1] is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's ...
Market share liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case against a group of product manufacturers for an injury caused by a product, even when the plaintiff does not know from which defendant the product originated. The doctrine is unique to the law of the United States and apportions liability among ...
Learned intermediary is a defense doctrine used in the legal system of the United States.This doctrine states that a manufacturer of a product has fulfilled its duty of care when it provides all of the necessary information to a "learned intermediary" who then interacts with the consumer of a product.
In legal disputes regarding product liability, a consumer-expectations test is used to determine whether the product is negligently manufactured or whether a warning on the product is defective. Under this test , the product is considered defective if a reasonable consumer would find it defective.
Traynor also felt that the majority's reasoning approached a rule of strict liability even though the decision was ostensibly based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: In leaving it to the jury to decide whether the inference has been dispelled, regardless of the evidence against it, the negligence rule approaches the rule of strict liability.
In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely ...