Suchergebnisse

While Virginia is not typically seen as "progressive" in the field of product liability law, the Commonwealth is nonetheless a forum in which these product liability battles take place. This article summarizes selected decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, federal district courts in Virginia, and courts of the Commonwealth issued between July 1, 2004 and May 15, 2005. This article also includes a discussion of the most relevant legislative changes made by the Virginia General Assembly over the same time period. While a complete analysis of every decision and statute affecting product liability is not possible, this article summarizes those which should be the most useful to practitioners in Virginia.

Abstract. This article summarizes product liability law in the Netherlands before and after the implementation of the European Directive on product liability. The Hoge Raad developed Dutch product liability law within the tort liability system. Some of those decisions will keep their importance. In the hot-water bottle case the Hoge Raad decided that proof of effective control does not relieve the manufacturer from liability, and that a manufacturer has to take into account that a certain part of the users will neglect to take appropriate precautions. The decision in the Halcion (a sleeping drug) case is of interest on three points, the influence of registration on liability, the notion of defect, and the duty to warn. Registration of a drug does not relieve the producer from liability. The Hoge Raad anticipated on the notion of defect in the Directive although the Directive did not apply directly. The producer has a duty to warn against side effects of drugs if the use does not have to expect those side effects. The product liability Directive was implemented with the Netherlands Product Liability Act of November 1, 1990. None of the options in the Directive were used. There is no published case law yet.
Résumé. Cet article donne un aperçu du droit de la responsabilité du fait des produits avant et après la mise en ceuvre de la Directive communautaire intervenue en la matière. Le Hoge Raad a en effet développé des règles relatives à la responsabilité du fait des produits au sein du système général du droit de la responsabilité, et ses décisions conserveront tout leur intérêt. Dans I'affaire dite de 'la bouteille d'eau chaude', le Hoge Raad a ainsi jugé que la preuve d'un contrôle effectif du produit n'exonérait pas le fabricant de sa responsabilité, et que ce demier devait prendre en compte le fait qu'une certaine fraction des utilisateurs du produit négligeraient de prendre des précautions appropriées. Quant à la décision rendue dans l'affaire dite du Halcion (un somnifère), elle a eu un triple intérêt: sur l'influence de l'enregistrement sur la responsabilité, sur la notion de défaut, et sur l'obligation d'information. L'enregistrement d'un drogue n'exonère d'abord pas le fabricant de sa responsabilité. Le Hoge Raad a en outre envisagé la notion de défaut au sens de la Directive, bien que celle-ci ne s'appliquait pas directement. Il a enfin précisé le devoir d'information qui pèse sur le fabricant concernant les effets secondaires des produits auxquels les utilisateurs peuvent ne pas s'attendre.
La loi néerlandaise du ler novembre 1990 a mis en oeuvre la Directive communautaire sur la responsabilité du fait des produits. Le texte ne fait usage d'aucune des options qu'elle autorise. Et aucune décision publiée n'est encore intervenue en la matière.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title VII -- Analysis of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 -- The age discrimination in Employment Act -- Sexual harassment in the workplace under Title VII -- Property rights -- Police misconduct -- The Civil Rights Act of 1871 42 U. S. C. 1983 -- The First Amendment to the United States Constitution -- The right to vote -- Attorneys' fees -- Defenses -- Zoning -- Relief damages -- Jury instructions -- Discovery -- Legality and privacy issues of e-mail in the workplace -- State freedom of information law -- Open meetings law -- A primer on how to defend a Section 2 Voting Rights Act Case.

The law of product liability has been created by state judges and legislatures. Although not widely noticed, this tradition changed when Congress enacted the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. That legislation established an eighteen-year statute of repose for claims brought by non-commercial passengers injured or killed in accidents involving light aircraft. Until that time, product liability law had been exclusively a function of state law. Nevertheless, product liability reform legislation has been the subject of extensive examination and scrutiny by Members of the United States Congress for one and a half decades. This Article analyzes the constitutional underpinnings for federal product liability reform legislation and explains why Congress has the authority under both the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause to pass federal product liability legislation. It also explains briefly why federal legislators, who otherwise favor returning power to the individual states, were justified in supporting federal legislation.

Consumer protection is a social and economicactivity that involves the government and businesses working together to ensure that consumers are satisfied. Even before independence, the rulers of India had consumer protection as one of their obligations. With the passage of the new Consumer Protection Act of 2019, the protection level was raised to the next level. The Act, apart from modifying the concepts of the Act of 1986, has introduced several revolutionary features like the concept of "unfair contract", mediation as method for resolution of consumer disputes, establishment of the central agency called Central Protection Agency with power of investigation and issuance of cease and desist orders, a new chapter on offences and penalties. Each of these topics will require a separate article. In the present article we will attempt to present an overview of the regime on product liability which in our opinion is going to be a game changer. The enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has included India in the list of the few countries that have legislation on "Product Liability".

Wie die meisten Civil Law Rechtsordnungen sieht auch das japanische Recht Schadensersatzansprüche im Rahmen einer deliktischen Haftung für eine Vielzahl erlittener Nachteile vor. Dabei wird bereits seit Einführung der deliktischen Haftung in Japan im späten 19. Jahrhundert Ersatz auch für immaterielle Schäden gewährt. Als Anspruchsgrundlagen für das Opfer und auch für nahe Angehörige dienen dabei Artt. 710 und 711 des japanischen Zivilgesetzes. Bei der Bemessung der Höhe des Anspruchs sind die Richter nach dem Zivilgesetz grundsätzlich frei und können ohne nähere Begründung fast jeden Betrag festsetzen. Für Verletzungen von Körper und Leben wurden durch Richterrecht Grundsätze für die Bezifferung immaterieller Schäden entwickelt. Das Gesetz sieht auch insoweit keine starren Höchstgrenzen vor, allerdings haben japanische Gerichte zumindest Richtwerte aufgestellt. Solche Richtwerte greifen insbesondere auch dann, wenn sich das Opfer oder der nahe Angehörige nur kurzzeitig in Japan aufhält. Erstinstanzliche Gerichte berücksichtigten in diesen Fällen den Lebensstandard im Heimatland der Anspruchsteller. Allerdings zeigt eine Recherche, dass eine solche Betrachtung auch nur dann erfolgte, wenn es sich um Länder handelte, die im Vergleich zu Japan einen niedrigeren Lebensstandard aufwiesen. Eine solche Vorgehensweise läuft den Bemühungen der japanischen Regierung zuwider, mehr Besucher und ausländische Arbeitskräfte für Japan gewinnen zu können. Diese Gerichte verschleiern die Ungleichbehandlung oft und scheinen die Berücksichtigung des niedrigeren Lebensstandards als Selbstverständlichkeit abtun zu wollen. Erschwerend kommt hinzu, dass die tatsächlichen wirtschaftlichen Gegebenheiten des Heimatlandes des Opfers nicht gewürdigt werden. Es gibt auch Gerichte, die eine derartige Vorgehensweise im Hinblick auf den Gleichheitssatz insgesamt ablehnen. Dies scheint jedoch eine Minderheit unter den Gerichten zu sein. Außerdem wenden japanische Gerichte diese Grundsätze nicht auch auf Opfer mit japanischer Staatsangehörigkeit an. Dies erscheint bemerkenswert, zumal auch zwischen verschiedenen Regionen innerhalb Japans beim Lebensstandard nach offiziellen Berichten Unterschiede von bis zu 10% bestehen. (Die Redaktion) ; Japan, like most countries following the Civil Law model of delictual liability, grants remedy to a broad range of civil wrongs. In particular, non-economic losses have been part of the Japanese delictual liability system since its inception in the late 19th century. Both the victim and the next-of-kin have a claim under articles 710 and 711 of the Japanese Civil Code. However, judges have considerable freedom when quantifying the damage amount, to the point they can grant almost any amount without offering justification. In general, the Japanese system for quantifying non-economic losses in cases where the victim suffers a physical injury follows certain patterns developed via case law. While there are no legal caps imposed on the amount, there are certain soft caps that have been established by the courts. One of these caps can be seen when the victim or the next-of-kin is a short-term stay foreigner in Japan. Lower courts have developed a standard that takes into account the "economic level" of the victim or next-of-kin's home country. However, our research reveals that this standard is only applied to countries considered to have a lower level of economic development than Japan. This treatment contrasts with the efforts of the Japanese government to increase the number of visitors and foreign labor that come to Japan. Often, courts that engage in this practice will offer no evidence on this disparity and seem to approach the issue as an evident matter. They also make no consideration for economic realities within the victim's country. Some courts have rejected this approach under the basis of equality-under-the-law principle, but this appears to be a minority view. Furthermore, Japanese courts do not apply this principle to cases dealing with Japanese nationals. This is particularly telling since, according to government reports, there is up to a 10% difference in economic development between various regions in Japan. Zusammenfassung