Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Statute of Limitations Starts to Run upon Awareness of Defective Prosthesis
The statute of limitations in a defective medical product claim may start to run from the time the plaintiff is first made aware that the injury may have been tortiously caused by a defective product. Guidi v. Stryker Corporation; Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, No. 03-55410, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Jan. 7, 2005.
The plaintiff underwent total hip replacement surgery after a congenital hip disorder was discovered. Ten years later, she began to suffer pain in her hip and consulted two orthopedic surgeons. Both surgeons advised that the replacement hip had deteriorated over time and recommended another surgery to replace her hip prosthesis with a new one. The surgery took place on March 8, 2001, and afterward it was discovered that the hip prosthesis was defective and had not merely deteriorated. The plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the makers of the hip prosthesis, and the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's lawsuit was barred by the 1-year statute of limitations. The district court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed. It held that the plaintiff was not aware that her hip prosthesis was defective until she underwent surgery to replace it. Because she filed her lawsuit within 1 year of the date of that discovery, her lawsuit was not time barred.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.