No one plans on being injured in an accident, whether it is a fall down, defective product or other injury caused by negligence. Speak with a personal injury attorney immediately to retain all your rights. The manufacturers of defective products are be liable for serious injuries.
TIME LIMITATIONS: New Jersey law requires a victim to bring a claim for negligence within a specific time period, or legal action is barred forever. It is also critical to document and preserve important evidence related to a potential claim as soon as possible. An attorney can offer advice to ensure that your rights will not be jeopardized by the passage of time.
More info at http://www.njlaws.com/dangerous_products.html?id=385
If an insurance adjuster asks you to sign a release or other legal document, and/or attempts to obtain a recorded statement in person or by telephone, and/or offers you legal advice or discourages you from speaking with a lawyer, BE CAUTIOUS! Insurance adjusters are not permitted to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. An injury attorney will offer advice that protects you, not the insurance company. It is the duty of the owner to properly and adequately inspect, maintain and keep the premises free from danger to life, limb and property of persons lawfully and rightfully using same and to warn of any such dangers or hazards thereon. You may be lawfully upon the premises as an employee or business invitee in the exercise of due care on your part. If severely injured, and the negligence was of someone other than your employer, you can retain an attorney to file a lawsuit for damages, together with costs of suit. Injured people in lawsuits can demand trial by jury.
If injured, contact Kenneth Vercammen & Associates before the statute of limitations expires.
Below in the formal instructions that Judges give jurors in Products Liability Jury trails.
5.40A PRODUCTS LIABILITY — Introduction: Caveats to Judges (3/10)
NOTE TO JUDGE
Caveats
I. Since the passage of the Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 through 7, effective July 22, l987, there is one cause of action for recovery for harm caused by a product. That theory is, for the most part, identical to strict liability as defined by Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co.,81 N.J.150 (l979). The Act explicitly excludes from coverage an environmental tort action as well as actions for harm caused by a breach of an express warranty. SeeSinclair v. Merck & Co., 195N.J.51 (2008) andStevenson v. Keene,131 N.J.393 (l993). Some negligence actions involving products probably survive the Act. SeeCartel Capital Corp. v. Fireco of New Jersey,81 N.J.548 (l980), where the manufacturer and the installer of a fire extinguisher system were sued after a fire damaged the property. See Tirrell v. Navistar Int’l., Inc.,248 N.J. Super.390 (App. Div. l991).
II. Adapting this general charge to the specific facts and contentions is critically important in any product liability case. As the Supreme Court advised in Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co.,supra at 176 (l979): “The instruction should be tailored to the factual situation to assist the jury in performing its fact finding responsibility.”
The defendant [insert name of defendant]as the manufacturer/seller of a product has the duty1to make/sell a product that is reasonably safe. In this charge when I refer to a reasonably safe product I mean a product that is reasonably fit, suitable and safe for its intended or reasonably foreseeable uses.[1] Defendant [insert name of defendant]owes that duty to direct users of the product, to reasonably foreseeable users of the product, and to those who may reasonably be expected to come into contact with it.
The defendant [insert name of defendant]is liable only if [insert name of the plaintiff]proves that the product causing the harm was not reasonably safe for its intended purpose. In this case the plaintiff [name of plaintiff]claims that the [name of product]was not reasonably safe for its intended purpose because of[2]:
a. a manufacturing defect; or
b. a failure to adequately warn or instruct; or
c. a design defect.
[Each specific defect and the appropriate law dealing with the defect will be discussed in the following charges.]
More info at http://www.njlaws.com/dangerous_products.html?id=385
1 This duty may apply to a defendant independent contractor such as a manufacturer of a component part of a product, or even a rebuilder where the part or product was built according to plans and specifications of the general manufacturer. The standard applied in assessing whether a component part manufacturer can be held liable for a design defect is set forth succinctly in Boyle v. Ford Motor Co., 399 N.J. Super. 18, 24 (App. Div. 2008),certif. denied, 196 N.J.597. The respective contractual responsibilities of defendant manufacturers and producers vis-a-vis component parts and the finished product have no bearing upon the issue of proximate cause. Michalko v. Cooke & Chem. Corp.,91 N.J.386 (l982).
[1] N.J.S.A.2A:58C-2 uses the phrase “not reasonably fit, suitable or safe.” Although this model charge condenses the phrase, and then defines “safe” by including fitness and suitability, individual judges may feel more comfortable using the full phrase. In addition if the phrase “fit” or “suitable” is more appropriate to the facts of the case, those words may be used instead of “safe.” Refer also to Freund v. Cellofilm Properties, Inc.,87 N.J.229, 242 (l981), for warning defect cases; and, generally, Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co.,supraat 176.
[2] Charge only the specific defect, which is applicable to the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.