Add to ORKGIn Shepard v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals held that a party directly witnessing injury to a close relative could recover damages for resulting mental distress in a strict products liability action. By recognizing a duty to avoid infliction of emotional distress in a products liability case, Shepard elevated a manufacturer\u27s duty in strict liability to the level recently recognized in a negligence action. The court correctly reasoned that a cause of action for mental distress in products liability was consistent with economic realities of modern society and the purposes behind products liability
Elden v. Sheldon, a case recently decided by the California Supreme Court, may represent a new era f...
As a general rule, contracts law does not permit an award of general damages for mental distress or ...
The relation between tort remedies and discrimination has been examined extensively, yet there has ...
In Shepard v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals held that a party directly witnessing ...
The California Court of Appeals has held that a cause of action may be maintained in strict liabilit...
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest ...
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could r...
Plaintiff placed an order with defendant pharmacist to have a rare photograph of plaintiff\u27s dece...
California courts, long leaders in the development of tort law, recently have decided a series of ca...
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. the Washington plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer of an auto...
The past decade has seen dramatic developments in the law of products liability. There has been libe...
Plaintiffs (husband, wife, and three children) incurred physical injuries and a fourth child was bur...
In Bass v. Nooney Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri abandoned the rule that a defendant is not liab...
Product liability has evolved from a combination of contract and tort theories. Under current contra...
In the products liability area the pendulum has now swung back to the imposition of strict liability...
Elden v. Sheldon, a case recently decided by the California Supreme Court, may represent a new era f...
As a general rule, contracts law does not permit an award of general damages for mental distress or ...
The relation between tort remedies and discrimination has been examined extensively, yet there has ...
In Shepard v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals held that a party directly witnessing ...
The California Court of Appeals has held that a cause of action may be maintained in strict liabilit...
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest ...
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could r...
Plaintiff placed an order with defendant pharmacist to have a rare photograph of plaintiff\u27s dece...
California courts, long leaders in the development of tort law, recently have decided a series of ca...
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co. the Washington plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer of an auto...
The past decade has seen dramatic developments in the law of products liability. There has been libe...
Plaintiffs (husband, wife, and three children) incurred physical injuries and a fourth child was bur...
In Bass v. Nooney Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri abandoned the rule that a defendant is not liab...
Product liability has evolved from a combination of contract and tort theories. Under current contra...
In the products liability area the pendulum has now swung back to the imposition of strict liability...
Elden v. Sheldon, a case recently decided by the California Supreme Court, may represent a new era f...
As a general rule, contracts law does not permit an award of general damages for mental distress or ...
The relation between tort remedies and discrimination has been examined extensively, yet there has ...