Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What To Do When 'Strict' Means 'Strict'
It is well known that the doctrine of strict liability imposes responsibility upon manufacturers without regard to their fault or the degree of care they may have exercised in designing their products. Yet, in some jurisdictions the law of strict liability is stricter than in others, and courts in these “strict-strict liability” jurisdictions may prohibit the employment of certain common defenses to product liability claims. Manufacturers that find themselves on the defense in such jurisdictions may face the unexpected and initially unpleasant news that the trial on the horizon really will be about the product, the whole product and nothing but the product, and that the sole question for the jury may be “can someone given 20/20 hindsight fathom a plausible way to make this product safer?” Such manufacturers will often find that what they were hoping to rely upon for the cornerstone of their defense ' explaining who, what, where, when, why and how from the company's perspective ' is not only irrelevant but also inadmissible at trial.
In this article, we ' two defense lawyers who practice regularly in the strict-strict liability state of Pennsylvania ' explore some of the roadblocks that the defense may encounter in trying a design defect case in such a jurisdiction. We use a recent case in which we successfully defended a forklift manufacturer against a design defect claim in Pennsylvania, Snyder v. Baker Material Handling Corp., January Term, 1999, No. 91 S 99 (Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania), verdict 6/6/03, to illustrate that one way for defendants to prevail in such a case is to turn the court's rulings limiting their evidence to their advantage. Embracing strict liability rather than bemoaning its severity will sometimes be a defendant's best trial tactic.
We note at the outset that one issue we do not discuss in this article is the nuts and bolts of the technical defense of the specific design defect claim at issue in the Snyder case or any other case. The purpose of this article is not to address specific cases, but rather to suggest some ideas that might be useful to counsel trying all manner of design defect cases.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.