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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 362

Taser had no duty to warn about metabolic acidosis
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • July 19 2012

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a company which manufactures electronic-control devices, or “tasers,” did not know, when the product was made and distributed, that repeated exposure could lead to fatal levels of metabolic acidosis and thus, under California law, had no duty to warn about this risk


Second Circuit rules failure to institute “litigation hold” does not constitute gross negligence per se
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • July 19 2012

In the context of an employment discrimination dispute, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an adverse inference instruction despite the defendant’s failure to preserve personnel files after receiving notice of the plaintiffs’ Equal Employment Opportunity charge in 2001


Federal court allows product claims to proceed against maker of baby sling
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • February 9 2012

A federal court in Washington has denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a product defect suit, finding that the case involved disputed facts as to when the plaintiffs knew or should have known through due diligence that the death of their 3-month-old daughter might have been caused by a baby sling; the court ruled that it would be up to the factfinder to determine if the three-year statute of limitations barred the suit


Missouri Supreme Court upholds statutory cap on punitive damages awarded to vehicle purchaser
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • February 9 2012

A divided Missouri Supreme Court has determined that the punitive damages cap enacted by the legislature in 2005 does not violate the state or federal constitutions when applied to a statutory cause of action


California appeals court insulates raw materials supplier from liability in workplace injury case
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • February 9 2012

The California Court of Appeal has held that, with few exceptions, companies supplying raw materials to a workplace cannot be held liable under negligence or strict liability theories for injuries sustained by an employee who works with those materials


Charles Silver, "Ethics and Innovation," George Washington Law Review (forthcoming 2011)
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2010

University of Texas at Austin Law Professor Charles Silver has prepared an article that will appear in a symposium issue of the George Washington Law Review addressing various aspects of aggregate litigation


Eighth Circuit dismisses action against insurer; no duty to defend actionable camouflage apparel odor-performance representations
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 13 2012

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company which sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify a camouflage clothing manufacturer that was sued for misrepresenting the odor-eliminating performance of its products


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


Rule 23(b)(2) class may be certified where monetary damages are incidental
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 13 2012

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that, consistent with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), a class in which monetary as well as declaratory or injunctive relief is sought may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) as long as the monetary relief is incidental