Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An Unexpected Evidentiary Battleground: The 'Causation' Element in Consumer Protection Claims
Ordinarily, the focus in a product liability case is on the defendant-manufacturer's duty to design and manufacture a safe and useful product and to warn adequately of any risks associated with its use. But an interesting and unexpected battleground can arise from a tag-a-along consumer protection claim. Here is the scenario: Plaintiff, in an individual action, sues defendant-manufacturer for injuries allegedly sustained in connection with the use of defendant's product. Plaintiff sues under traditional product liability theories as well as under the state's consumer protection statute, which proscribes deceptive and misleading trade practices. In particular, plaintiff alleges a consumer fraud has occurred because she has been injured by a product that, she claims, had been sold in connection with deceptive sales practices; in this case, certain allegedly false or misleading advertisements.
Plaintiff has testified at her deposition that she has not seen or heard the advertisements in issue. Nevertheless, she proposes to admit the advertisements because, she points out, the state consumer protection statute under which she is suing does not require that she relied on the alleged misleading sales practice. (While the majority of courts hold that proof of actual reliance is not required under the state consumer protection statute, proof of reliance is required in some jurisdictions. Be sure to check your particular state's consumer protection statute and interpreting case law.) Compare Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24, 29 (2000) (no reliance required) and April v. Union Mortgage Co., 709 F. Supp. 809, 812 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (same) and Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89, 98 (Cal. App. 1996) (same), with Pauley v. Bank One Colo. Corp., 205 B.R. 272, 276 (D. Colo. 1997) (reliance required) and TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. '17.50(a)(1)(B) (same). If the plaintiff succeeds, she would enjoy an evidentiary advantage, in that the potentially damaging advertisements will go to the jury and presumably influence their determination of liability on the product claims.
In response, the defendant contends that the advertisements are inadmissible because the consumer protection statute under which plaintiff is suing has not dispensed with the causation requirement.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?