We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 205

Consumer fraud claims filed against baby crib bumper manufacturer

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 13 2012

A woman who purchased baby crib bumpers has filed a putative class action in a California federal court alleging violations of consumer-fraud laws and claiming that the company falsely advertises the products as safe when properly installed, despite risks of injury and death posed by these products

Eleventh Circuit allows scalp burn claims to proceed against hair dye maker

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 13 2012

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a lower court erred in excluding non-hearsay statements about a hair dye product in a personal injury lawsuit

Commission abandons appeal in challenge to unsafe product database

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 13 2012

According to a news source, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has discontinued its Fourth Circuit appeal from a Maryland federal court’s ruling that a product safety complaint was too misleading to post on the commission’s Saferproducts

Negligent misrepresentation suit against paint company tossed

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 13 2012

A federal court in Missouri has dismissed, under the economic loss doctrine, a negligent misrepresentation claim against a paint manufacturer involving a purportedly defective product and alleging economic loss only

Pennsylvania Supreme Court requires products defendant to plead and prove highly reckless conduct as affirmative defense

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

In a matter of first impression, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that a products liability defendant must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured plaintiff’s alleged “highly reckless conduct” was the sole or superseding cause of her injuries

Fifth Circuit rules AG action over LCD panels is removable to federal court

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a Mississippi attorney general (AG) antitrust action against companies that sell liquid crystal display (LCD) panels may be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), because the suit fulfills the law’s requirements as a “mass action.”

Court allows plaintiffs in tire defect suit to inspect manufacturing facility

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

A federal court in New York has determined that plaintiffs in two separate cases allegedly injured when the rear tires on their motorcycles suddenly deflated during operation may inspect the defendant’s manufacturing facility and that the inspection will not be precluded by or subject to a protective order

Ninth Circuit reverses asbestos judgment; district court failed to conduct Daubert hearing

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a Daubert hearing when asked to reconsider the credentials of plaintiffs’ expert witness and thus reversed a $9.37-million jury award for injury allegedly caused by occupational exposure to asbestos

Alabama jury finds no seatbelt defect in accident ejection suit

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

A state jury in Alabama has determined that a seatbelt manufacturer was not liable for the injuries sustained by a pregnant driver who was ejected from her minivan during an accident despite wearing a seatbelt

Homeowners allege spray foam insulation endangers health

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

Pennsylvania residents have filed a putative class action against companies that made and installed spray foam insulation (SPF) in their homes, claiming that its application “causes property damage and health hazards to occupants of installed homes such that the only remedy is the complete removal of SPF.”