A recent decision handed down by the Connecticut Supreme Court may significantly impact the way product liability lawsuits are litigated within the state of Connecticut in the future. In a products liability case, the “malfunction doctrine” permits the plaintiff to argue at trial that a product possessed a defect without offering direct evidence of a defect, but rather only circumstantial evidence of the alleged defect. Under the malfunction doctrine a plaintiff is permitted to argue that a product was defective due to an unexpected event that would not have occurred if the product functioned properly without the necessity of specifying the part or component that was actually defective. A common use of the malfunctions doctrine is in product liability cases arising out of a fire. In a fire case, a plaintiff will typically argue that all causes for the fire have been ruled out except for a malfunction within the product despite no direct evidence of a specific defect.
Continue Reading The Connecticut Supreme Court restricts the plaintiff’s ability to rely on the “Malfunction Doctrine” to support a Product Liability claim
Do You Really Want to Know What’s in Your Food? Connecticut Requires Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods
Connecticut, the first state to pass a law that requires labeling for genetically engineered foods, is being joined by states with similar labeling requirements, but no labeling mandates. Despite the reluctance of some states to enact these labeling regulations, it appears that the trend is moving toward more stringent labeling requirements for food manufacturers. We, of course, as product liability defense attorneys and risk professionals, are keeping an eye on this trend, since expansions of statutory labeling requirements will present more risk exposure to food manufacturers.
Continue Reading Do You Really Want to Know What’s in Your Food? Connecticut Requires Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods