Product Liability

Decision

Koutsoukos v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required

There are cases in which a product defect was deemed so obvious that expert opinion was not found to be required; but, this case did not involve, as described in the 1997 Connecticut Supreme Court case of Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., an accident "so bizarre that the average juror upon hearing the particulars, might reasonably think: [w]hatever the user may have expected from that contraption, it certainly wasn't that."

Decision

Lake Road Trust Ltd. v. ABB Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required

A company that builds a power plant is in the business of supplying a service, and it may not be legally responsible, under the Product Liability Act, as a "product seller," if one component of the power plant is defective.

Decision

Girtman v. Ace Hardware Corp.

  •      
    • Subscription Required

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a product-liability suit, a manufacturer, seller or distributor must prove that there are no genuine issues of material fact that the plaintiff's decedent was not exposed, either directly or as a result of secondhand exposure, to any of the defendant's products.

Decision

Wasilewski v. The Raymond Corp.

  •      
    • Subscription Required

A court may award punitive damages in a product liability case, if the plaintiff proves that injury resulted from a product seller's alleged reckless disregard for the safety of product users.

Decision

Town of Sprague v. Mapei Corp.

  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Connecticut Product Liability Act provides the exclusive method to obtain a legal remedy as a result of an injury that results from a defective product. Allegedly, the defendant manufacturer, Mapei Corp., represented to the plaintiff, the Town of Sprague, that the defendant?s ?Concrete Renew? product could be used to resurface a sidewalk.

News

Conn. Joins Wave Of Suits Over Anti-Stroke Drug

When the anticoagulant drug Pradaxa hit the U.S. market in late 2010, part of the marketing appeal was that the medication did not require blood monitoring, dose adjustments or dietary restrictions.