O'Neil, et al. v. Crane Co., et al.
| Docket Number | S177401 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 2012 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
8 cases
-
Summerfield v. City of Inglewood
...force by tort law, would have any result besides warning signs everywhere that everyone ignores? (Cf. O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 363, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 [when every firm must warn everybody about everything, the costly exercise does no good, for to warn of all......
-
Gilead Life Sciences, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of S.F.
...alternative drug arises only because its sale of the first drug has created the risk of harm. (See O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 342, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 (O’Neil) ["a product manufacturer may not be held liable … for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product u......
-
Williams v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc.
...manufacturer of defective products, but also against distributors or sellers of defective products. (O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 342, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 ["California law has long provided that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have a duty to ensure the......
-
Reynolds v. Ezricare LLC
...he has marketed or distributed a defective product, and that product caused the plaintiff's injury." O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335, 348, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 (2012) (cleaned up). Plaintiffs allege all Defendants—EzriCare, EzriRx, Global, and Amazon—are part of the chain ......
Get Started for Free
7 firm's commentaries
-
More Support in the Fight Against Innovator Liability
...down in flames in O’Neil. Our next brush with bare metal asbestos cases was in last year’s “Innovator Liability at 100O’Neil v. Crane Co., 266 P.3d 987 (Cal. 2012). The asbestos plaintiffs made the same foreseeability uber alles argument in O’Neil that was the basis of the adverse innovator......
-
Maryland Expands the Potential for Manufacturer Liability in Failure to Warn Cases by Adopting an Exception to the Bare Metal Defense
...3d 1280, 1283, 1286 (N.D. Ga. 2014); Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1368, 1372- 73 (S.D. Fla. 2012); O’Neil v. Crane Co., 266 P.3d 987, 991 (Cal. 2012); and Toth v. Economy Form Corp., 571 A.2d 420, 422 (Pa. Super. 1990). Interestingly, to the extent that this exception is ......
-
California Court Of Appeal Affirms New Trial In Talc Case
...general rule that a manufacturer has no duty to warn of risks posed by another manufacturer’s product.” Id. (citing O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335, 364-66 (2012)). This is clearly the correct result, and we like any cabining of the wrongly decided T.H. v. Novartis opinion that we can ......
-
New York Rejects “Innovator Liability”: The Future Of Conte Looks Dim
...the use of a product, even when those hazards arise entirely from the product of another manufacturer, reaches too far.” O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335, 360 (2012). Whatever the merits of Greenman v. Yuba and the legal era that it signaled, the opinion at least sets as the premise for......
Get Started for Free