Last term's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky placed a constitutional duty upon defense attorneys to advise clients if a plea carries a risk of deportation. But now, state and federal courts are applying the ruling's Sixth Amendment duty to warn to a host of other collateral areas outside the immigration context.
A three-week product liability trial against Ford Motor Co. over two men's serious injuries in a car wreck wrapped up earlier this month in St. Louis, with the jury returning a defense verdict. But a major legal issue affecting the case is far from resolved. A key component of the plaintiffs' claims was the argument that Ford knew about problems with the 2000 Ford Focus's control arm after the car at issue was sold and before it crashed in 2003 -- but didn't warn consumers.
A claim of failure to warn and instruct is a staple in product liability litigation. It is also a potentially dangerous claim because it is so easy to argue that adding a few words to the label or manual would have prevented the accident from happening. Therefore, when the law talks about the "duty to warn," it includes warnings on products in the form of warning labels; safety information in instructions; instructions that affirmatively describe how to use a product safely; and safety information in other means of communication such as videos, advertising, catalogs and Web sites. Once the decision has been made to warn, the manufacturer needs to determine whether the warning is adequate. The ANSI Z535 standards provide some good guidelines on creating warning labels and how to incorpor...
The Court began by stating that the standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because all material facts have been established in their favor.38 Next, the Court clarified that the plaintiff was bringing an ordinary negligence claim and not a malpractice claim that would require a direct physician-patient relationship.39 Of the plaintiffs various arguments, the Court accepted only the plaintiffs claim that Dr. Florio was negligent under ordinary common-law negligence principles in prescribing medication without warning Mr. Sacca of potential side effects.40 The Court found that the duty to warn extended to Coombes because his injury w...
Within the time span of the last twenty years, more or less, the practice of pharmacy has changed in dramatic ways. While at one time pharmacists were exclusively drug-oriented and focused on accurately filling drug prescriptions written by physicians,1 today's pharmacists are patient-oriented and trained to provide pharmaceutical care, care that goes beyond the dispensing function and includes planning drug therapies, caring for patients, and monitoring patients to ensure desired therapeutic outcomes.
The state Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against two Catholic dioceses, ruling that the Madison Diocese did not have a broad duty to warn potential future employers of a teacher's past sexual abuse of children. However, the court split 3-3 on whether to let the suit proceed against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, where church officials had begged parents not to report the teacher to police and promised he would be sent for treatment and not allowed to have contact with children. The tie affirms the decision to dismiss the case against the archdiocese.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Durham Hosiery Mills (Inc) | arctic tundra | William Fuhs | Naser Rahman | Sbm Site Services | Daño al honor | Souilly | Area metropolitana de montevideo | base de datos sql | proroga indagini preliminari mancata notifica
