The Communications Decency Act does not shield an internet website owner from liability for failure to warn users about dangers posed by sexual predators using the site to target vulnerable women for abuse. Read More
The federal Airline Deregulation Act preempts California’s Online Privacy Protection Act, so Delta Airlines does not have to comply with the latter in constructing its mobile phone app. Read More
Asbestos supplier could not escape strict product liability for worker’s mesothelioma based on the sophisticated user defense as substantial evidence supported the jury’s weighing of the gravity of harm posed by the asbestos, the likelihood the sophisticated user would give required warnings and the feasibility of the supplier’s doing so. Read More
Triable issue of fact existed as to whether school had a duty to supervise middle school classroom where child was injured while practicing risky break-dancing moves. Read More
A defendant care-giver accused of elder neglect did not meet Welf. & Inst. Code 15610.57’s "having care and custody" requirement, when he merely furnished intermittent outpatient medical treatment to the elder, rather than providing for some/all of the elder’s fundamental needs. Read More
Manufacturer of auto brake forming tools is strictly liable for worker’s injury caused by breathing asbestos dust while using the tools in the intended manner on asbestos-laced auto brakes, even though manufacturer did not make the brakes. Read More
A suit for pre-natal injuries caused by exposure to toxic chemicals is governed by CCP 340.4 (providing for a 6-year from birth limitations period not tolled during minority) rather than CCP 340.8 (providing for a two-year from discovery limitations period for suits for injuries from toxic chemicals, subject to tolling for minority). Read More
CCP 340.5’s one-year-from-discovery limitations period applies to a patient’s claim she was injured by a hospital negligent maintenance of its equipment or furniture if the particular equipment or furniture (here, guard rails on a hospital bed) are integrally related to medical diagnosis or treatment of the patient. Read More
Defendant failed to introduce any substantial evidence that plaintiff, though a salesman of asbestos-containing insulation and refractory, was aware of its cancer-causing quality, as would have been required for defendant to assert the sophisticated user defense. Read More
Warships are not “products” for purposes of strict liability in tort since they are not distributed commercially; also, the “any exposure” theory is insufficient proof of causation in an asbestosis case. Read More
Plaintiff hospital adequately stated fraud and misrepresentation claims against defendant insurance company, after hospital sought and received assurances that a patient was insured, only to have insurance company retroactively deny coverage after more than $1 million worth of treatment had been administered. Read More
Plaintiffs injured by a another manufacturer’s generic version of a brand name drug may recover from the brand name drug’s manufacturer on claims for negligent failure to warn of and negligent misrepresentation about potential adverse side effects of the drug. Read More
