16 Cited authorities

  1. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

    26 Cal.4th 465 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 827 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Restating the same criteria for exceptions from the rule set forth in section 1714
  2. Soule v. General Motors Corp.

    8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 817 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the consumer expectations test was not appropriate for a claim that a car was defective because the wheel assembly detached in accident
  3. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.

    20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 505 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the injury was proximately caused by the product's design, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the benefits outweigh the risks, i.e., "that the product is not defective"
  4. Brown v. Superior Court

    44 Cal.3d 1049 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 248 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that drug manufacturers cannot be held strictly liable for design defects in prescription drugs, but may be held liable for defective manufacturing or defective warnigns
  5. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.

    717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 113 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court's construction requiring a direct connection would exclude a preferred embodiment of the invention, where Figure 6 depicted lift frame connected to mounting frame via an intermediate removable hitch arm
  6. SR Intern. Business Ins. v. World Trade Center

    467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that expert qualified on basis of experience "must show how his or her experience . . . led to [the expert's] conclusion or provided a basis for [the expert's] opinion"
  7. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.

    8 Cal.3d 121 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that recovery on a theory of products liability is precluded where damage consists solely of economic losses
  8. Austin v. Will-Burt Co.

    361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 44 times
    Finding proximate cause had not been shown where decedent raised aluminum mast under power lines despite warning labels and safety training advising against doing so
  9. Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC

    893 F. Supp. 2d 523 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that terrorist claims of responsibility are not exceptions to hearsay as statements against interest because terrorists believe taking credit for an attack is a benefit, not a detriment
  10. Reach Music Publ'g, Inc. v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc.

    988 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 10 times
    Cautioning that expert opinion must "have a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry"
  11. Section 411.310 - Presumptions in product liability actions

    Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.310   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that “it shall be presumed, until rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, that the product was not defective if the design, methods of manufacture, and testing conformed to the generally recognized and prevailing standards or the state of the art in existence at the time the design was prepared, and the product was manufactured”
  12. Section 7.72.050 - Relevance of industry custom, technological feasibility, and nongovernmental, legislative or administrative regulatory standards

    Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.050   Cited 15 times

    (1) Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory standards or administrative regulatory standards, whether relating to design, construction or performance of the product or to warnings or instructions as to its use may be considered by the trier of fact. (2) When the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with

  13. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 362 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or