8 results for 'cat:"Civil Procedure" AND cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"Product Liability"'.
J. Russell grants, in part, a manufacturer’s motion to dismiss this products liability, tort, and contract dispute brought by several solar companies. The solar companies request punitive damages and allege the manufacturer sold defective electric power safety cutoff devices, which overheated and failed in multiple projects, creating a high risk of fire and electrocution. The solar companies failed to allege they had a fiduciary or confidential relationship nor that the manufacturer mislead partial or fragmentary statements. Therefore, the fraudulent concealment is dismissed, and the manufacturer must answer the amended complaint. The court will deny the request punitive damages because the burden at this stage has been met on clear and convincing evidence.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Russell, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1606, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: civil Procedure, negligence, product Liability
J. Partida-Kipness finds that the lower court improperly dismissed the family's negligence claims related to a product recall in this case arising from an alleged "rollover accident involving a utility terrain vehicle." The lower court erred in granting the dealer's no-evidence summary judgment motion as to the recall-related claims, as the dealer's motion was "insufficient as a matter of law as to the element of duty." Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Partida-Kipness, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: 05-22-00677-CV, Categories: civil Procedure, negligence, product Liability
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free