Law Brief®: David Pfeffer and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Legal Implications of Infrastructure Collapses
When your car’s brakes fail on a busy New Jersey highway or your airbag doesn’t deploy during a collision, a defective automotive part may have caused your injuries rather than driver error. In these cases, defective product...more
Defective medical devices present serious risks for patients. Just how big—and how severe—is the problem? Consider this from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): “Each year, the FDA receives over two million medical...more
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has certified a class action against the manufacturer of a stolen handgun used to carry out the 2018 mass shooting on Danforth Avenue in Toronto, reversing in part the motion judge’s decision...more
Tesla Inc., a leading innovator in electric vehicles, is under increasing legal scrutiny as two major product liability cases bring safety concerns about its cars into sharp focus. These lawsuits highlight alleged design...more
A recent lawsuit involving an AI chatbot represents another indication of a possible shift in how courts will approach software under traditional strict products liability principles. Traditionally, courts have been hesitant...more
In a recent case pending in Hawaii state court, a husband and wife sued a tobacco company defendant for various claims related to its manufacturing and marketing of tobacco cigarettes, including strict products liability,...more
As federal agencies and states grapple with regulating artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance its safety profile, and as businesses race to adopt AI for myriad purposes, it is important to recognize a general safety...more
The United States Supreme Court first recognized products liability, including strict liability, as part of the general maritime law in East River Steamship S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986). The...more
In Pelton v Maytag, 2024 ONSC 3016 (“Pelton”) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) ruled that the defendant manufacturers were not liable for failing to warn consumers that the product could fail because of a...more