1 DISCOVERING POTENTIAL THIRD PARTIES IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS: WHO SHOULD WE CONSIDER? By. Jim Tomlinson, Alyssa Caverson, Brittany Sherwood and Garett Harper In today s litigious world, claims related to motor vehicle accidents are exceptionally common. With the number of these cases on the rise, defence counsel has had to become more creative in defending them. One way to effectively defend these claims is to consider whether the accident may have been caused by someone else who may be required to assume your defence or indemnify you. Specifically, we recommend always considering whether the accident could have been caused by a mechanical failure in the defendant vehicle. Mechanical failures can happen for a variety of reasons. With today s large-scale foreign manufacturing industry, vehicle parts are manufactured by the millions. As a result, mistakes can, and do, happen along the production line. The most common reason for a mechanical failure is that foreign manufacturers have used cheap, substandard materials that easily break. In other cases, the design of the part is just not sufficient for the task it was made to complete. In the automobile industry, these types of failures are typically captured by product recalls. As a result, any time there is a possibility that a product failure caused the accident, we recommend that you consider bringing a third party claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle, and the manufacturer of the specific part. However, it is equally possible that the vehicle may have recently been subject to maintenance, repairs, or inspections. Further, if the vehicle was sold used, it may have a safety standard certificate. In these scenarios, consideration should be given to bringing a third party claim against the garage, mechanic, or dealer that certified the vehicle as safe to drive. In this paper, we will first set out when to bring a third party claim against the manufacturer. We will then set out when to bring a third party claim against the garage, mechanic or dealer. Third Party Claims against Manufacturers Recently, a number of large-scale, highly publicized recalls have plagued automobile manufacturers in North America and abroad. In 2010, Toyota recalled an estimated 2.3 million vehicles for issues relating to the acceleration pedal as well as an additional 5.2 million vehicles for an improper floor mat, which caused the pedals to become pinned to the floor. Furthermore, there were allegations that the issues surrounding Toyota vehicles were responsible for anywhere from 20 to 40 deaths. 1 In 2014, General Motors issued an infamous recall of an estimated 28 million vehicles worldwide in response to a faulty ignition switch that impacted the ability to deploy airbags in an accident. In General Motors case, there were allegations that the faulty ignition played a role in upwards of 150 deaths and 850 injuries. 2 1 James R. Healy, Toyota deaths reported to safety database rise to 37, online: USA Today <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/ toyota17_st_n.htm>. 2 Ben Klayman, Deaths linked to GM ignition-switch defect rise to 23, online: Reuters
2 A review of Transport Canada s recall notice database revealed that from 2014 to present, there have been 1,537 recalls issued by manufacturers impacting various types of motor vehicles and for problems related to various structural and safety concerns. 3 While vehicle recalls to the extent as those seen impacting Toyota and General Motors are rare, recalls are a more common event than one would think. Occasionally, vehicles subject to a recall are involved in accidents that may result in injuries or fatalities. Furthermore, an allegation may be advanced that the accident was caused by a part subject to a recall. If you are presented with a case where the accident may have been caused by a recalled part that malfunctioned, you should consider bringing a third party action against the manufacturer. The following section of the paper will address how to frame the claim against the manufacturer in breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence. Framing the Claim First, most third party actions against the manufacturer of a vehicle can be grounded in a claim for breach of contract. It can be alleged that the defendant is either as party to, or was the intended third party beneficiary of the contract, or contracts agreed to during the original production and sale of the vehicle. Second, defendants may also allege a claim for breach of the express or implied warranty that was agreed upon their purchase of the vehicle. Common implied warranties include that a product is of merchantable quality, and that the product is fit for the purpose for which the product was purchased. Third, defendants may also allege that the manufacturer was negligent in the creation, design, marketing or general manufacturing process of the part. Manufacturers can be held to be liable in negligence for failing to ensure the product performed to a certain standard, or for failing to warn consumers of potential defects (i.e. failing to recall the product in a timely manner). Breach of Contract Historically, claims against the manufacturer or distributor of a defective product were barred because the end consumer did not have a contract with the liable party; there was no privity of contract. However, the Court s ruling in the well-known case of Donoghue v. Stevenson 4 prevented both manufacturers and distributors from advancing a privity of contract argument in the context of product liability and negligent manufacture claims. The ruling in Donoghue is notable in the context of motor vehicle accidents mainly due to the complexity of relationships that exist between distributors (both parts and finished product), suppliers, and manufacturers of products in the automobile industry. Donoghue changed the legal landscape by allowing a defendant to effectively cut through the multiple layers of contracts in < GM has provided compensation to victims for 74 fatalities and approximately 126 injuries, see Chris Bruce, GM ignition switch death toll continues to rise, online: Autoblog <http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/24/gm-ignition-switchdeath-toll-74/>. 3 Government of Canada, Road Safety Recalls Database, online: Transport Canada < Sec-Sur/7/VRDB-BDRV/search-recherche/menu.aspx?lang=eng>. 4  A.C. 562 [Donoghue].
3 the automobile industry. In other words, this decision allows Canadian parties to seek redress directly against the manufacturer, even if they never entered into a contract directly with them. Pre-Donoghue, manufacturers would rely on the concept of privity by refusing to indemnify parties that were not contemplated by the original contract with the manufacturer. As consumers would only enter into a contract with the retailer (in our case, the dealership), the manufacturers would escape liability as they had no contractual relationship with the consumer; their relationship was only with the retailer. However, post-donoghue, manufacturers could no longer rely on the concept of privity as a defence to a contract-based product liability claim. While Donoghue provided claimants the common law ability to seek compensation for damages from the manufacturers of products, the introduction of the Sale of Goods Act ( SGA ) 5 gave teeth to claimants arguments by providing legislative terms that apply to all contracts for the sale of goods. In other words, the SGA permits defendants to bring third party claims directly against the manufacturer. Please note that the sale of services is covered below, in the section dealing with the potential liability of garages, mechanics and used car dealers. Breach of Implied and Express Warranties: The Sale of Goods Act Beyond the principles articulated in the common law, the SGA prescribes the obligations of a manufacturer of a product. Section 15 of this Act states that: Subject to this Act and any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale except as follows: 1. Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes it known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgement, and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods will be reasonably fit for such purpose, but in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name there is no implied condition as to fitness for any particular purpose. 2. Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether the seller is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality, but if the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied condition as regards defects that such examination ought to have revealed 3. An express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith. It is notable that this section applies to every contract for the sale of goods that fulfils the conditions as set out in subsection (1). This is the case unless the section is inconsistent with an express warranty or condition found in the contract, or the parties have explicitly excluded this section s application in the terms of the contract. However, it is rare that consumer contracts 5 R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 1.
4 will explicitly exclude the relevant provisions of the SGA. As a result, the implied conditions and warranties pursuant to the SGA are applicable to the vast majority of consumer purchases. Furthermore, there is an implied condition in all contracts for sale that the goods purchased will be of merchantable quality. There is also an inference (albeit rebuttable) that the buyer will rely upon the manufacturer s skill and judgment to provide goods reasonably fit for the communicated purpose. Where automobile manufacturers are competing for a share of the consumer market, they will often advertise the high performance or the safety of a vehicle as reasons why a specific car should be purchased over another. If these marketing ploys fail to prove accurate, defendants can bring claims against the manufacturer for the product not meeting the communicated purpose, and possibly for negligent misrepresentation. In investigating the appropriateness of a third party claim against an auto manufacturer, it is important that defence counsel investigate any claims with respect to the safety or performance of the vehicle made by the manufacturer. Furthermore, consideration must be given as to whether or not the representation was a factor in the defendant s decision to purchase the vehicle. Depending on the specific fact scenario, the SGA may provide an avenue for recovery on these claims. An example of where this strategy was successful appears in the case of Fuller v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. 6 In Fuller, the plaintiff was driving a half-ton panel truck along an asphalt road at a speed approximately 20 to 25 miles per hour, when he began to enter a curve in the road. While making the turn, the car began to slide due to icy road conditions. When the plaintiff engaged the brakes to slow his speed, they did not operate as expected, and the plaintiff s vehicle ended up in the ditch, and suffered significant damage. Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff got out of the vehicle and found that a portion of the rear axle had become dislodged from the car prior to the car entering the ditch. Ford Motor Company Limited manufactured the vehicle. As a result, the plaintiff sued Ford Motor Company Limited in contract for a breach of both the express and implied warranties of the product. The plaintiff also claimed that Ford Motor Company Limited failed to meet their obligations pursuant to section 15 of the SGA. In Fuller, the court determined that the accident did not dislodge the axle. Although the precise cause of the defect could not be determined, the court was able to rule that the issue with the axle was a latent defect. 7 On this basis, the court held that the defendant manufacturer had failed to satisfy both the express and implied warranties of the product, and thus had breached the contract the plaintiff entered into with them when the vehicle was purchased. The Negligence of Manufacturers While breach of contract may be the obvious first step, manufacturers can be liable if the product was created in a negligent manner. Specifically, a manufacturer may be found negligent if they made some error during either the design or manufacturing process. Manufacturers may be found negligent if they failed to carry out effective testing of the product, or if they failed to properly warn consumers of potential dangers in using the product. Notably, in the context of automobiles, a manufacturer may also be found negligent if they failed to recall a product or 6 (1978) 22 O.R. (2d) 764 (Ont. County Ct.). 7 Ibid.
5 issue an appropriate warning if an issue with the product arises after it has entered the marketplace. If the claim is framed in negligence, the first issue to be determined is whether the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer. Once a duty of care to the consumer is established, the second issue to be determined is what standard of care ought to be imposed on the manufacturer. It was determined in Donoghue (and affirmed in numerous decisions succeeding Donoghue) that a manufacturer of a product owes a duty to the consumer. 8 With respect to the standard of care owed by a manufacturer, it is clear that the standard demanded of a manufacturer and designer of a product is the normal negligence standard. The normal negligence standard is that of reasonable care in the specific factual circumstances. 9 Therefore, in order to succeed on the basis of negligent manufacturing, the claimant must demonstrate that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in the course of the manufacturing process. Jurisdictional Challenges The fact that there are no native Canadian auto manufacturers had previously created a barrier to an effective third party claim. Further, there is no similar legislation to the SGA in the United States. Knowing this, automobile manufacturers have tried to raise a jurisdictional defence to claims, which have resulted in significant procedural issues and have increased the associated costs. However, the decision of Hutton v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd. 10 removed this barrier. The court in Hutton held that despite the fact that the parent company of the defendant was the true manufacturer of the vehicle, and that the defendant was more properly characterized as a distributor, the defendant was held liable for the negligent design and manufacture of the vehicle by the US parent company. Therefore, any attempt by an automobile manufacturer to try a jurisdictional defence for this reason can likely be deflated by referencing the decision in Hutton. However, for the purposes of ensuring complete discovery of all relevant evidence, it is likely best practice to sue both the parent auto manufacturer and the relevant Canadian subsidiary. Third Party Claims against Garages, Mechanics and Dealers When attempting to seek indemnity or contribution from a garage, mechanic, or used car dealer for shoddy repairs or improper inspection, a defendant may take several different avenues to secure a successful recovery. Specifically, a defendant can claim that the garage, mechanic or dealer negligently repaired, inspected, or certified the vehicle. Negligence A mechanic is expected to conduct all inspections and repairs with the reasonable care that would be expected of a person with his training and expertise. When an individual or business falls below this standard of care, a court will likely deem them to have performed their duties 8 Donoghue, supra note 4. 9 Phillips v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada,  2 O.R. 637 at p. 653 (Ont. C.A.). 10  4 WWR 284, 33 Alta LR (5th) 340 (Alta. Q.B.).
6 negligently, and consequently find them liable for the damages that flow from the negligent inspection or repair. However, not every instance of a mechanical failure will necessarily indicate that liability will be found against the mechanic, or even against the automobile body shop; the mechanic s work still needs to fall below the standard of care. In other words, finding that a mechanical failure may have contributed to an accident does not necessarily mean that the mechanic who conducted repairs or issued a safety certificate did so negligently. For instance, in Gervais v Johnson, the defendant rear-ended the vehicle being driven by the plaintiff. 11 While the main action was settled, the defendant subsequently brought a third-party action against Midway Alignment Ltd. in both contract and tort for the improper issuance of a safety certificate. In Gervais, the defendant purchased a 15-year-old vehicle, and Midway had issued a safety certificate, which certified the vehicle would be safe to drive for 36 days. The accident occurred six weeks after the safety certificate was issued, or just over a week past the expiration of the safety certificate. When the inspection was completed, the brakes were found to have pitting, which is indicative of the early stages of a failure. Another major issue at trial focused on the condition of the brake lines upon certification. Although the evidence in Gervais supported a finding of brake failure, the defendant was found to have been negligent by following too closely to the vehicle in front of him, as well as negligent in not having his vehicle maintained or inspected after the 36 days in order to ensure the certificate remained valid. Further, as the rear brakes were found to have pinholes throughout them, which is a condition that was held to have occurred slowly over time, the court held that defendant ought to have been alive to this issue through the proper use and maintenance of his vehicle. The court further held that the third party claim against Midway Alignment Ltd. failed in that while Midway Alignment Ltd. may have committed a misrepresentation, it was innocent and not negligent. Negligent Misrepresentation Defendant motorists may also have a cause of action against mechanics or garages for improper inspections, even where they did not retain the party to conduct the inspection. The action would be brought on the basis of a negligent misrepresentation, also known as the Hedley Byrne principle, which stems from the decision in Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. 12 The Hedley Byrne principle states: If a person seeks information or advice from another in circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that he or she was being trusted or that his or her skill or judgment was being relied on, and the person asked chooses to give the information or advice without clearly so qualifying the answer as to show that he or she does not accept responsibility, then the person replying accepts a legal duty to exercise such care as the circumstances require in making a reply. 11 Gervais v Johnson (1990) 19 ACWS (3d) 373 [ Gervais ]. 12 Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. (1963),  A.C. 465 (U.K. H.L.) [ Hedley Byrne ].
7 A duty to exercise proper care may arise out of some special relationship. Special relationships can include the following: a solicitor to client, a banker to customer, contracting party to contracting party or out of a particular relationship created ad hoc. This principle has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Queen v. Cognos Inc. 13 In Queen, the court held that there are four prerequisites in order for such a duty to be found: (1) a duty of care on the person giving advice or information arising from a special relationship between that person and the recipient; (2) a false statement negligently made; (3) reasonable reliance on the statement by its recipient; and, (4) a loss resulting from that reliance. Garages, mechanics and dealers face this issue most frequently when they issue safety certificates. 14 When safety certificates are issued, and it is later found that there were repair issues that were not properly identified and disclosed, a cause of action exists for negligent misrepresentation. In Ali v Ontario Ltd., 15 the plaintiff purchased a vehicle from a private vendor who advertised the vehicle as certified. The vendor provided the plaintiff with a safety standard certificate issued pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. In Ali, the plaintiff began noticing problems with the vehicle after purchasing it and brought it to a garage. The plaintiff also had the vehicle inspected by the Ministry of Transportation. When the Ministry inspected the vehicle, various deficiencies were noted, and the vehicle was impounded. As a result, the plaintiff brought an action against the business that issued the safety certificate. The court in Ali held that there was no cause of action stemming solely from a breach of the statutory duty as that is conducted for the public good (i.e. to ensure that all vehicles on the road have been safety checked). The effect of the breach, however, resulted in a safety certificate being issued containing misrepresentations with respect to the vehicle s mechanical condition. This provided the plaintiff with an avenue to bring a claim as the statements were held to be negligent misrepresentations, enabling the owner of the vehicle to successfully seek damages against the defendant. Breach of Warranty Another avenue for recovery is via the Consumer Protection Act ( CPA ). The CPA applies to both goods and services and can, therefore, be applied in a variety of contexts. For our purposes, this legislation can be relied on to third party mechanics and garages for repairs that did not meet the standard of care, or against used car dealers that sell vehicles with faulty parts. 13 Queen v. Cognos Inc.,  1 S.C.R. 87 [ Queen ]. 14 Please note that while the Hedley Byrne principle and the requirements in Queen apply to representations made by garages, mechanics and dealers, it applies equally to the earlier situation where the manufacturer of a vehicle made negligent misrepresentations as to the quality or fitness of their vehicles for marketing purposes. 15 Ali v Ontario Ltd., (1984) 24 ACWS (2d) 192 [ Ali ].
8 Section 9 of the CPA states: Quality of services 9.(1) The supplier is deemed to warrant that the services supplied under a consumer agreement are of a reasonably acceptable quality. 16 Quality of goods (2) The implied conditions and warranties applying to the sale of goods by virtue of the Sale of Goods Act are deemed to apply with necessary modifications to goods that are leased or traded or otherwise supplied under a consumer agreement. 17 Part VI of the CPA relates to Repairs to Motor Vehicles and Other Goods. Section 63 of the CPA states: Warranty for vehicles 63. (1) On the repair of a vehicle, every repairer shall be deemed to warrant all new or reconditioned parts installed and the labour required to install them for a minimum of 90 days or 5,000 kilometres, whichever comes first, or for such greater minimum as may be prescribed. 18 Loss of warranty (5) A consumer who subjects any vehicle part to misuse or abuse is not entitled to the benefit of the warranty on that part. There are certain limitations to bringing a claim against a vendor of a used vehicle. The CPA only applies to the sale of vehicles through a business to a person purchasing the service for themselves or for their family. Therefore a private sale (from individual to individual) will not warrant statutory protection. 19 The CPA is also deemed not to apply where the purchaser is using the vehicle for business purposes. 20 In any event, while the SGA is frequently pled, the CPA is underutilized in pleadings. This legislation is meant to be interpreted in conjunction with the SGA and is particularly relevant in the context of bringing an action against a mechanic or automobile body shop. Determining Liability: Destructive Testing and Spoliation Once you have identified the appropriate parties, defendants who are considering bringing third party claims against manufacturers or automobile body shops must turn their mind to the possibility of obtaining an expert report to establish liability. This is an important step in the litigation process and parties should be cautious to proceed in a manner that protects the integrity of the findings of an expert report. Fully considering of the implications of expert testing is particularly important in situations where the expert testing is necessarily destructive, as is the case with many vehicle parts. If the expert s testing process is conducted in a way that destroys the part, and potentially prejudices the other parties to an action, the court has the discretion to impose various sanctions such as striking the pleadings, or excluding the expert s findings and report , c. 30, Sched. A. 17 Ibid. 18 Supra, note National Onsite Service Ltd v Trans Canada Truck Repairs (2001) Ltd., 2014 SKPC 53 at para Bowen v Parkrow Auto Sales Ltd.,  OJ No 1403 at para 31.
9 In Dyk v Protec Automotive Repairs Ltd., the plaintiffs obtained an expert report indicating that the condition of the brakes had contributed to the subject motor vehicle accident. 21 The testing of the brake pads was necessarily destructive. The vehicle itself had also been destroyed and was therefore no longer available for any testing by the defendants or third party. In this case, the court held that spoliation would only be accepted as a basis for excluding evidence if it can be shown that relevant evidence in pending legal proceedings was intentionally destroyed for the purpose of either committing fraud or suppressing the truth. While in this case the plaintiff did intentionally destroy the evidence, it was in order to conduct expert testing and was not done for any fraudulent reason. Notably, Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice took a strong stance in a similar set of circumstances. In Cheung (Litigation Guardian of) v Toyota Canada Inc. the driver, Wai Cheung was killed after his van rolled over on Highway Several members of his family were injured in this accident and were the plaintiffs in this action. As a result of this accident, the plaintiffs sued not only Toyota Canada Inc. but also the maintenance garage where the vehicle was maintained and the dealership where they purchased the vehicle. This decision was a result of a motion brought by three co-defendants in this matter against the estate of Cheung to strike Cheung s crossclaim. The central issue in this matter was whether the accident was caused by Chueng s driving, or whether the axle of the van broke and caused the rollover. An expert report was prepared on behalf of the estate. This report determined that recent repairs to the brakes were faulty and caused the axle failure. The expert concluded that nuts on a bearing retainer plate were insufficiently tightened, which led to a misalignment that resulted in friction causing wear on the axle that ultimately broke. Unfortunately, there were two spoliation events that occurred as a result of these tests, and the report was obtained prior to the defendant, Toyota being put on notice of the claim. As a result, the estate was ordered to provide all of the photographs, data, findings and opinions arising out of the investigation, examination or testing of the van. It was also required to deliver specified component parts in the possession of the expert. Best efforts were made to comply with the order but it turned out that the estate s expert did not preserve many of the parts following testing. Furthermore, the estate s expert misplaced the tires prior to their inspection. The photographs that were provided to the parties indicated that the nuts had been moved before the expert had examined the parts. The court in Cheung did not find that the moving defendants had suffered the requisite degree of prejudice to warrant striking the crossclaim under Rule of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule also permits the court to make any order as is just where a party fails to comply with an interlocutory order. In the circumstances of this case, the court determined that the estate could not rely on any expert report or evidence that was dependent on the missing tires. These cases demonstrate that the courts have various remedies when responding to an allegation of spoliation. As a result, we recommend that if an insurance adjuster is in the process of obtaining an expert report, it should notify any adverse parties of this intention, especially where destructive testing is contemplated. This allows all parties the opportunity to participate in the testing and/or indicate what parts they would like preserved. To avoid confusion, parties 21  BJC No  OJ No 411.
10 retaining an expert should be sure to clearly communicate what parts must be preserved and what may be destroyed prior to handing over the evidence to them. These cautionary steps early on in the process will ensure the preservation of one s pleadings as well as any opinions that are obtained as a result of retaining an expert. Conclusion Overall, our experiences suggest that whenever we are asked to defend a claim that arises out of a motor vehicle accident, consideration must always be given to whether there are any potentially liable third parties. We also recommend that these considerations are made as early as possible in the initial stages of file management, so that proper notice and investigation can take place well before limitation periods expire. For instance, when you first see the claim, you should ask your engineer if any part of the vehicle failed prior to, or during the collision. Second, if a part failed, find out whether the part was subject to a manufacturer s recall notice. Third, ask the insured if the vehicle was recently repaired, inspected or certified. Asking these questions early on can assist us as your legal counsel in identifying possible third parties that may indemnify you for the claim.
Key Concept 4: Understanding Product Liability Law Suppose that you are the president of a firm making products for sale to the public. One of your worries would be the company's exposure to civil liability
BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK SECOND EDITION CHARLES YC CHEW CHAPTER 8: THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE 1. Outline the elements of the tort of negligence. The elements of the tort
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 firstname.lastname@example.org What China's Lemon Law Will Mean For Manufacturers
Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s
Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0425 444444444444 PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS, INC., PETITIONER, v. BILL HEAD D/B/A BILL HEAD ENTERPRISES AND TITEFLEX CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
The Liability of Lessors and the Insurance Implications of Bill 35 The British Columbia Legislature recently took steps to cap the liability exposure of auto dealers and auto leasing companies. Included
Product Liability Risks for Distributors: The Basics Susan E. Burnett Bowman and Brooke LLP Whereas.... State laws vary widely and change frequently, Every case is different, I'm not your lawyer.. Disclaimer:
Chapter 99B. Products Liability. 99B-1. Definitions. When used in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Claimant" means a person or other entity asserting a claim and, if said claim
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
Ontario Bar Association Conference Pleading Your Causes of Action to Win June 13, 2005 Strategies, Approaches and Considerations for a Statement of Claim Richard Bogoroch and Emma Holland* Bogoroch & Associates
Page 1 Case Name: Trainor v. Barker Between Patricia Trainor, David Bruce Trainor, Carl Phillip Trainor and Deanna Rachael Trainor by her litigation guardian Patricia Trainor, Plaintiffs, and Aaron Gary
Date: 20080219 Docket: CI 07-01-50371 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Pickering v. The Government of Manitoba et al Cited as: 2008 MBQB 56 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) COUNSEL: ) THERESA
CANADIAN PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW Presented by Kevin Johnson Litigation Partner Lette LLP Canadian German Chamber of Industry and Commerce Inc. September 28, 2011 LETTE LLP 20 Queen Street West, Suite 3300,
Products Liability: Putting a Product on the U.S. Market Natalia R. Medley Crowell & Moring LLP 14 November 2012 Overview Regulation of Products» Federal agencies» State laws Product Liability Lawsuits»
CANADIAN PRODUCT LIABILITY HANDBOOK PRODUCT LIABILITY GROUP CONTACTS NATIONAL LEADER Robert L. Love T 416.367.6132 email@example.com REGIONAL LEADERS Calgary Bruce Churchill-Smith, Q.C. T 403.232.9669 firstname.lastname@example.org
PASSIVE SELLER IMMUNITY FROM PRODUCT LIABILITY ACTIONS House Bill 4 significantly impacted most areas of Texas Tort Law. In the traditional products liability arena, tort reform affected three major changes:
No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule
LIABILITIES AND REMEDIES OF BOAT DEALERS, BROKERS AND REPAIRERS Prepared by Christopher Giaschi An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1995 Industry Conference and Trade Show of the British
western cape office of the consumer protector What you should know about contracts The purpose of this guide is to give ordinary South African consumers a very basic guide to contracts and what they mean
Filed 8/28/13 Shade v. Freedhand CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
Consumer rights to return faulty goods Standard Note: SN/HA/2239 Last updated: 2 April 2012 Author: Lorraine Conway Section Home Affairs Section The Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended by the Sale and Supply
VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES Title 13. Courts and Court Procedure Damages Regulation of Actions and Proceedings Article 20. Actions Part 8. Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage Construction
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION OF IKO ORGANIC SHINGLES CLASS ACTION IN CANADA If you are a current or former owner or lessee of a building in Canada with IKO Organic Shingles, your legal rights could be affected
13-20-801. Short title Colorado Revised Statutes Title 13; Article 20; Part 8: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ACTIONS FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1 This part 8 shall be known and may be cited as the Construction
Motor Legal Expenses Insurance Motor Legal Expenses Insurance Policy Document Certificate of Insurance This insurance is underwritten by Inter Partner Assistance SA and managed on their behalf by Arc Legal
LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO By Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 I. OVERVIEW OF PUERTO RICO LEGAL SYSTEM A. Three branches of government B. Judicial Branch 1. Supreme
Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Note: When you bind your factum, all pages (except for the cover and index) starting with your chronology, should always be on the left-hand side. The righthand
COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants
Defending Against Negligent Inspections Claims: Best Practices to Reduce Costly Actions Andrew J. Heal, LL.M. 416.583.5901 email@example.com Larry Ptashynski Manager of Inspections City of Vaughan 905.832.8511
Introduction The RAJI (CIVIL) 5th Product Liability Instructions refer only to manufacturers and sellers. These instructions should be expanded when appropriate to include others in the business of placing
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 firstname.lastname@example.org Schiff Hardin LLP.
Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained A Presentation for CLE Employment Law Conference 2013 Pan Pacific Hotel Vancouver, BC May 9, 2013 Carman J. Overholt,
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
Bugaboo International BV Spare Parts Web Shop Online Terms and Conditions of Sale This page (together with the documents referred to on it) outlines the terms and conditions on which we supply any of the
Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized
FIRST DIVISION 05/21/07 No. 1-05-2368 BERNARD VILLANUEVA and LISA VILLANUEVA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and GROSSINGER CITY AUTOCORP, INC., d/b/a Grossinger City Toyota,
Product Liability Product Liability This paper discusses product liability under the Consumer Guarantees Act, Sale of Goods Act and Fair Trading Act. A supplier of goods may also have liability in negligence,
Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM PENELOPE BELVOIR, as Executor de son Tort for the Pending Estate of Robert Belvoir, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff, ROPES COURSES, INC., FB ORLANDO
BAD FAITH VERDICTS The tort of bad faith failure to pay or investigate is still an often plead claim by the insured. Recent case law relies primarily on court precedent when determining whether the insured
Information or instructions: Plaintiff's original petition-auto accident 1. The following form may be used to file a personal injury lawsuit. 2. It assumes several plaintiffs were rear-ended by an employee
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
1 Corporate Social Responsibility: A New Era of Transnational Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations? By Janne Duncan, Janet Howard and Michael Torrance 7 Supreme Court of Canada Rules Indirect
Data Preservation Duties and Protocols November 2008 HOU:2858612.3 Discussion Outline I. The Differences Between Electronic and Paper Discovery II. The Parameters of Electronic Discovery III. Rule 37(e)
Navigating the Statute of Limitations in Texas Wesley G. Johnson Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712 712-9500 Telecopy: 214-712 712-9540 Email: Wes.Johnson@CooperScully.com
ONYX BUSINESS AUTO POLICY COVERAGE Various provisions in this policy restrict overage Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered. Throughout this policy
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,
Key Legal Issues In Construction Defect Claims Deborah E. Colaner Crowell & Moring LLP Recent Development: The California Supreme Court has ruled that contractors cannot be held liable in negligence for
FIXED COSTS PART 45 PART 45 Contents of this Part I FIXED COSTS Rule 45.1 Scope of this Section Rule 45.2 Amount of fixed commencement costs in a claim for the recovery of money or goods Rule 45.2A Amount
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 159 AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO BY JOHN EDWARDS INTRODUCTION During 1936, 138 insurers reported automobile insurance premiums written
20-279.21. "Motor vehicle liability policy" defined. (a) A "motor vehicle liability policy" as said term is used in this Article shall mean an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance, certified
Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Bill Bill No. /2012. Read the first time on. 2012. A BILL intituled An Act to amend the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Chapter 52A of the 2009 Revised
COURT FILE NO.: 00-CV-189420 DATE: 20060413 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Nathan Anthony Resch, Robert Higham, Ashley Higham, Ashley Crayden, Shannon Crayden, minors under the age of 18 years
LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 7:09 Act 36 of 1997 Amended by 2 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 18.. L.R.O. 2 Chap. 7:09 Limitation of Certain Actions
RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall
If you have questions regarding Product Liability, please contact Bruce Schoumacher via email@example.com www.querrey.com 2012 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. B. PRODUCT LIABILITY ILLINOIS
LE Law Services Ltd 127 High Road Loughton Essex IG10 4LT Telephone: 020 8508 4961 Facsimile: 020 8508 6359 www.lelaw.co.uk L.E. LAW INFORMATION SHEET NO. 11 GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS 1. Introduction
Employers Liability Section Definitions 1 lnjury Bodily injury, death, disease, illness, mental injury, mental anguish or nervous shock 2 Employee A B Any person under a contract of service or apprenticeship
PERFORMANCE BONDS AND LABOUR AND MATERIAL PAYMENT BONDS: WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SHOULD KNOW Deborah E. Palter, B.A., LL.B., J.D. What is a Bond? A bond is a three party written agreement. The three
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Thomasina Dumonceau Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.2999 firstname.lastname@example.org SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES This paper
Special definitions for this section Benefits Claim Defence costs The General terms and conditions and the following terms and conditions all apply to this section. Any compensation awarded to an employee
Agents E&O Standard of Care Project Survey Maryland To gain a deeper understanding of the differing agent duties and standard of care by state, the Big I Professional Liability Program and Swiss Re Corporate
QUESTERRE ENERGY CORPORATION (the Corporation ) INSIDER TRADING AND REPORTING POLICY The purpose of this insider policy is to summarize the insider trading restrictions to which directors, officers, consultants
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TIME PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS Although the lemon law does not provide a statute of limitations, a claim must allege at least one of the following: 1. A serious safety defect in the braking
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
TORT LAW CONCEPTS FOR REGULATORS What is a Tort? A legal construct only exists when the law says it exists A private or civil wrong or injury Primary purpose is to compensate person injured by the actions
UNIDENTIFIED MOTORIST CLAIMS IN ONTARIO AN OVERVIEW Written Materials by: Elizabeth Iwata, Associate McCague Borlack LLP Presentation by: Elizabeth Iwata Unidentified motorist claims are, at times, challenging
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY & PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE AGREEMENT PART A GENERAL I. The TASB Risk Management Fund (Fund) provides coverage as outlined in this Automobile Liability & Physical Damage Coverage Agreement.
1. PARTIES TO A PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION A. Plaintiffs Individuals, corporations, and other business entities may allege strict product liability tort claims. A strict product liability plaintiff, whether
Weiss and Christensen Personal Injury Attorneys have been serving the Las Vegas Valley for a combined total of more than 40 years. We are different than the typical high volume law firm. When you choose