› Ryan J. Carra
› Toren M. Elsen
For more information about our firm, please visit www.bdlaw.com .
Underscoring that regulatory standards and compliance can sometimes provide a defense against liability, particularly where the allegedproduct defects have nothing to do with the intended uses of the product, Beveridge & Diamond successfully defended a major water utility against claims that the drinking water it delivered caused pinhole leaks in plumbing.
In a decision easing a plaintiff’s pleading requirements for product liability claims under California state law, the California Court of Appeals ruled that a plaintiff at the pleading stage need not identify the specific toxins contained in a product that allegedly injured him, so long as he can identify the product that allegedly caused him harm.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a pair of decisions this quarter that may serve to limit the liability of equipment manufacturers under two key federal environmental remediation statutes.
Emphasizing the importance of specificity in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) notices of intent to sue (“NOIs”), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that NOIs must identify each chemical alleged to be the basis of a RCRA violation for a claim to withstand dismissal.
A Sixth Circuit decision affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment to CSX Transportation reaffirms the evidentiary standard in tort cases for plaintiffs seeking damages for increased risk of future illness.
In a case that limits the availability of class actions for plaintiffs seeking remedies based on their aggregate exposure to a chemical, the Third Circuit affirmed a decision denying plaintiffs class certification because the common evidence proposed for trial was not sufficiently cohesive and common issues of law and fact did not predominate.
Illustrating the evidentiary burdens on class action plaintiffs seeking certification, a federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a proposed class of plaintiffs living within 2,500 feet of a gas station allegedly contaminating groundwater was overbroad.
The content of this alert is not intended as, nor is it a substitute for, legal advice. You should consult with legal counsel for advice specific to your circumstances. This communication may be considered advertising under applicable laws regarding electronic communications.
Copyright 2013 | Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. | All rights reserved.