|
|
Hawaii Dog Bite Statues
DIVISION 4. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS o:p> TITLE 36. CIVIL REMEDIES AND DEFENSES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER 663. TORT ACTIONS PART I. LIABILITY; SURVIVAL OF ACTIONS
HRS
§ 663-9 (2003)
[§ 663-9]. Liability of animal owners (a) The owner or harborer of an animal, if the animal proximately causes either personal or property damage to any person, shall be liable in damages to the person injured regardless of the animal owner's or harborer's lack of scienter of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal. (b) The owner or harborer of an animal which is known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild, or vicious, if the animal proximately causes either personal or property damage to any person, shall be absolutely liable for such damage. HISTORY: L 1980, c 218, § 2 NOTES: CROSS REFERENCES. --As to actions for removal or destruction of dogs biting humans, see § 142-75. CASE NOTES WHAT MUST BE PROVEN UNDER THIS SECTION. --Under this section, persons suffering injury caused by an animal must prove negligence on the part of the animal's owner in order to make the owner liable for the injury. The injured person must prove duty, breach of duty, and damages; however, the injured person need not prove the owner's knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities. This knowledge, scienter, is often referred to as the doctrine of the dog's "first bite." Hubbell v. Iseke, 6 Haw. App. 485, 727 P.2d 1131, cert. denied, 68 Haw. 691 (1986). EFFECT OF SUBSECTION (B). --Subsection (b) of this section imposes strict liability on owners of animals known by their "species or nature to be dangerous, wild or vicious." However, dogs are not included in this category since dogs are not generally of a known vicious nature. Hubbell v. Iseke, 6 Haw. App. 485, 727 P.2d 1131, cert. denied, 68 Haw. 691 (1986). CITED in Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters, 823 F. Supp. 778 (D. Haw. 1993). RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR4th. Liability of owner or operator of business premises for injury to patron by dog or cat. 67 A.L.R.4th 976. Liability for injuries caused by cat. 68 A.L.R.4th 823. Liability of owner or operator of business premises for injuries from electrically operated door. 44 A.L.R.5th 525. Liability for injury inflicted by horse, dog, or other domestic animal exhibited at show. 68 A.L.R.5th 599. HAWAII LEGAL REPORTER. As to comparative negligence in case of dog bite, see 85-1 Haw. Legal Rep. 85-0141. USER NOTE: For more generally applicable notes, see notes under the first section of this subpart, part, chapter, or title. DIVISION 4. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 36. CIVIL REMEDIES AND DEFENSES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER 663. TORT ACTIONS PART I. LIABILITY; SURVIVAL OF ACTIONS
HRS
§ 663-9.1 (2003)
[§ 663-9.1]. Exception of animal owners to civil liability (a) As used in this section: (1) "Premises" includes any building or portion thereof or any real property owned, leased, or occupied by the owner or harborer of an animal. (2) "Enter or remain unlawfully" means to be in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to be upon the premises. A person is not licensed or privileged to enter or remain in or upon a premises if a warning or warnings have been posted reasonably adequate to warn other persons that an animal is present on the premises. A person who, regardless of the person's intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to the person by the owner of the premises or some other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. (3) The definitions of "intentionally" and "knowingly" as contained in sections 702-206(1) and 702-206(2) shall apply. (b) Notwithstanding sections 663-1 and 663-9, any owner or harborer of an animal shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from actions of the animal occurring in or upon the premises of the owner or harborer where the person suffering either personal or property damage as a proximate result of the actions of the animal is found by the trier of fact intentionally or knowingly to have entered or remained in or upon such premises unlawfully. (c) Notwithstanding sections 663-1 and 663-9, any owner or harborer of an animal shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from actions of the animal where the trier of fact finds that: (1) The animal caused such damage as a proximate result of being teased, tormented, or otherwise abused without the negligence, direction, or involvement of the owner or harborer; or (2) The use of the animal to cause damage to person or property was justified under chapter 703. HISTORY: L 1980, c 218, § 3; am imp L 1984, c 90, § 1 NOTES: CROSS REFERENCES. --As to action against owner of dog which has bitten a human being on at least two separate occasions, see § 142-75. RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR4th. Liability of owner or operator of business premises for injury to patron by dog or cat. 67 A.L.R.4th 976. Liability of owner or operator of business premises for injuries from electrically operated door. 44 A.L.R.5th 525. HAWAII LEGAL REPORTER. As to comparative negligence in case of dog bite, see 85-1 Haw. Legal Rep. 85-0141. USER NOTE: For more generally applicable notes, see notes under the first section of this subpart, part, chapter, or title.
DIVISION 4. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 36. CIVIL REMEDIES AND DEFENSES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER 663. TORT ACTIONS PART IV. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
HRS
§ 663-31 (2003)
§ 663-31. Contributory negligence no bar; comparative negligence; findings of fact and special verdicts (a) Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or the person's legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person or in the case of more than one person, the aggregate negligence of such persons against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made. (b) In any action to which subsection (a) of this section applies, the court, in a nonjury trial, shall make findings of fact or, in a jury trial, the jury shall return a special verdict which shall state: (1) The amount of the damages which would have been recoverable if there had been no contributory negligence; and (2) The degree of negligence of each party, expressed as a percentage. (c) Upon the making of the findings of fact or the return of a special verdict, as is contemplated by subsection (b) above, the court shall reduce the amount of the award in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made; provided that if the said proportion is greater than the negligence of the person or in the case of more than one person, the aggregate negligence of such persons against whom recovery is sought, the court will enter a judgment for the defendant. (d) The court shall instruct the jury regarding the law of comparative negligence where appropriate. HISTORY: L 1969, c 227, § 1; am L 1972, c 144, § 2(i); am L 1975, c 152, § 1; am L 1976, c 161, § 1; am imp L 1984, c 90, § 1 CASE NOTES COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE APPLIES ONLY TO CLAIMS ACCRUING AFTER JULY 14, 1969. Silva v. Oishi, 52 Haw. 129, 471 P.2d 524 (1970). AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A CLAIM ACCRUING PRIOR TO THAT DATE. --Where plaintiff and defendant were involved in an automobile accident on November 12, 1966, the claim for relief accrued on that date, at which time the rule of contributory negligence was the recognized law of this jurisdiction. The comparative negligence statute, this section, which became effective on July 14, 1969, was not applicable to this suit and the court declined to adopt by itself the doctrine of comparative negligence for case, as the legislative enactment adopting the doctrine of comparative negligence in place of the common-law rule of contributory negligence was strictly within the legislative power, and as to adopt the doctrine of comparative negligence for the case would have created unnecessary and unwarranted confusion in the law. Bissen v. Chiyoko Fujii, 51 Haw. 636, 466 P.2d 429 (1970). CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE AGAINST ALL CLAIMS ACCRUING BEFORE JULY 14, 1969, the effective date of this section. Pacheco v. Hilo Elec. Light Co., 55 Haw. 375, 520 P.2d 62 (1974). PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM DEFEATED IF NEGLIGENCE GREATER THAN DEFENDANT'S. --Plaintiff's recovery on her negligent products liability claim would only be defeated completely if the fact finder found that her negligence was greater than the negligence of the defendants. Wagatsuma v. Patch, 10 Haw. App. 547, 879 P.2d 572, cert. denied, 77 Haw. 373, 884 P.2d 1149 (1994). This section barred plaintiff's recovery, where arbitration award in separate action apportioned liabilities between parties and determined that plaintiff was 70 percent negligent and defendant 30 percent negligent. Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Haw. 143, 976 P.2d 904 (1999). IN APPORTIONING NEGLIGENCE UNDER HAWAII'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE STATUTE, the only negligence to be apportioned is causative negligence -- negligence which contributed to the plaintiff's injury. Dunbar v. Thompson, 79 Haw. 306, 901 P.2d 1285 (Ct. App. 1995). THIS SECTION CLEARLY CONFINES THE DETERMINATION OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE only among the parties (litigants) to the proceeding. Sugue v. F.L. Smithe Mach. Co., 56 Haw. 598, 546 P.2d 527 (1976), overruled on other grounds, Espaniola v. Cawdrey Mars Joint Venture, 68 Haw. 171, 707 P.2d 365 (1985). CODEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION. --This section may apply to actions other than those sounding entirely in tort, and there is no reason why one defendant should lose the protection of this section merely because a codefendant commits an intentional tort. Ozaki v. Association of Apt. Owners, 87 Haw. 265, 954 P.2d 644 (1998). CONSTRUCTION WITH PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS. --Pure comparative negligence principles are applicable to reduce a plaintiff's recovery in strict products liability cases. Torres v. Northwest Eng'g Co., 86 Haw. 383, 949 P.2d 1004 (Ct. App. 1997). SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY. --The plain meaning and legislative history of this section indicates that it was not intended to influence strict products liability law. Armstrong v. Cione, 69 Haw. 176, 738 P.2d 79, reconsideration denied, 69 Haw. 674 (1987). Plaintiff's strict liability claim arising out of injuries which he suffered when his hand went through the plate glass door of a shower was not defeated merely because he was found to be 67 per cent negligent and respondent to be 33 per cent liable. However, the glass shower door was not a "product" for purposes of a strict product liabilities course of action, and thus petitioner was not entitled to a strict products liability instruction. Armstrong v. Cione, 69 Haw. 176, 738 P.2d 79, reconsideration denied, 69 Haw. 674 (1987). PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE REDUCED BUT DID NOT DEFEAT CLAIM SOUNDING IN STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY, even though his responsibility for the damages was determined to be greater than that of the defendants. Hao v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 69 Haw. 231, 738 P.2d 416, reconsideration granted, 69 Haw. 674 (1987).
THIS SECTION DOES NOT AFFECT AN ACTION BETWEEN TWO JOINT TORTFEASORS under the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, § § 663-11 through 663-17. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. GMC, 65 Haw. 428, 653 P.2d 96 (1982). o:p> AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES REQUIRED. --The jury's award to plaintiff of special damages but no general damages was improper. Dunbar v. Thompson, 79 Haw. 306, 901 P.2d 1285 (Ct. App. 1995). PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM WAS BARRED under this section, the comparative negligence statute, where her husband's negligence was greater than that of defendants, since where the initial claim of injury could not be maintained, the derivative action for loss of consortium must also fail. Mist v. Westin Hotels, Inc., 69 Haw. 192, 738 P.2d 85 (1987). PRIMARY IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO RECREATIONAL SCUBA DIVING COMPANY. --The decision of a tourist on vacation, who entrusted the planning of a safe dive to an experienced professional dive company, and who was not so experienced that he fully understood all the ramifications of a lengthy, deep dive, did not have the knowledge and experience to appreciate the inherent dangers of the type of dive that caused his death, and his decision to participate in the deep dive was not a fully informed decision and could not be considered 100 per cent voluntary, so that under the circumstances of the case, primary implied assumption of the risk was not a defense. Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters, 823 F. Supp. 778 (D. Haw. 1993). LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE ABOLISHED. --The apportionment of damages provision in this section has rendered the doctrine of last clear chance completely obsolete and is no longer viable in Hawaii. Rapoza v. Parnell, 83 Haw. 78, 924 P.2d 572 (Ct. App. 1996). A CHILD IS ONLY REQUIRED TO USE THAT DEGREE OF CARE APPROPRIATE to his age, experience, and mental capacity. Viveiros v. State, 54 Haw. 611, 513 P.2d 487 (1973). WHEN COSTS DUE PREVAILING PARTY MAY BE REDUCED OR DENIED. --Costs to which the prevailing party is otherwise entitled may be reduced or denied in the discretion of the court only where fault is shown in the conduct of the litigation. Abreu v. Raymond, 56 Haw. 613, 546 P.2d 1013 (1976). DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A JURY DETERMINATION. --In a personal injury case an apportionment sanction deprived defendant of a jury determination as to the degree of negligence of the parties. Kamaunu v. Kaaea, 99 Haw. 432, 56 P.3d 734 (Ct. App. 2002). THE DUTY OF THE JURY IN PASSING UPON THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE is to give consideration to the whole record. Chainey v. Jensen, 1 Haw. App. 94, 614 P.2d 402 (1980). INSTRUCTION AS TO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF APPORTIONMENT. --Trial court, if requested and when appropriate, should inform the jury of the possible legal consequences of a verdict apportioning negligence among joint tortfeasors. Kaeo v. Davis, 68 Haw. 447, 719 P.2d 387 (1986). QUESTION TO JURY WAS IMPROPER. --Question to jury that required the jury to apportion the extent to which the parties' fault contributed to the incident, rather than to plaintiff's injuries, was improper. Dunbar v. Thompson, 79 Haw. 306, 901 P.2d 1285 (Ct. App. 1995). REFUSAL TO GIVE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS ERROR. --The trial court should have instructed the jury on the law of comparative negligence and their failure to do so made the jury instructions that were given prejudicially insufficient. Rapoza v. Parnell, 83 Haw. 78, 924 P.2d 572 (Ct. App. 1996). CITED in Farrior v. Payton, 57 Haw. 620, 562 P.2d 779 (1977) Anders v. State, 60 Haw. 381, 590 P.2d 564 (1979) Haworth v. State, 60 Haw. 557, 592 P.2d 820 (1979) Wong v. Hawaiian Scenic Tours, Ltd., 64 Haw. 401, 642 P.2d 930 (1982) Geldert v. State, 3 Haw. App. 259, 649 P.2d 1165 (1982) McKeague v. Talbert, 3 Haw. App. 646, 658 P.2d 898 (1983) Park v. Esperanza, 4 Haw. App. 91, 662 P.2d 214 (1983) Lang v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 4 Haw. App. 237, 663 P.2d 640 (1983) Hakaru Shishido v. State, 4 Haw. App. 321, 666 P.2d 608 (1983) Lopez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 70 Haw. 562, 777 P.2d 715 (1989) Smith v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 72 Haw. 416, 823 P.2d 717 (1991) Kealoha v. County of Haw., 74 Haw. 308, 844 P.2d 670 (1993). RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR4th. Comparative negligence: Judgment allocating fault in action against less than all potential defendants as precluding subsequent action against parties not sued in original action. 4 A.L.R.5th 753. Applicability of comparative negligence principles to intentional torts. 18 A.L.R.5th 525. "Concert of activity," "alternate liability," "enterprise liability," or similar theory as basis for imposing liability upon one or more manufacturers of defective uniform product, in absence of identification of manufacturer of precise unit or batch causing injury. 63 A.L.R.5th 195. Comparative negligence of driver as defense to enhanced injury, crashworthiness, or second collision claim. 69 A.L.R.5th 625. Comparative negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk in action against owner of store, office, or similar place of business by invitee falling on tracked-in water or snow. 83 A.L.R.5th 589. HAWAII LEGAL REPORTER. As to defense of assumption of risk, see 79 Haw. Legal Rep. 79-0001. As to judgment notwithstanding verdict where plaintiff assumed risk, see 81-1 Haw. Legal Rep. 81-289. As to assumption of risk by trespasser, see 82-1 Haw. Legal Rep. 82-327. As to comparative negligence in case of dog bite, see 85-1 Haw. Legal Rep. 85-0141. LEGAL PERIODICALS HAWAII BAR JOURNAL. Article, A Proposal for the Judicial Adoption of Comparative Negligence in Hawaii, 5 Haw. B.J. 49 (1968). Article, Judicial Legislation in the Supreme Court of Hawaii: A Brief Introduction to the "Felt Necessities of the Time," 8 Haw. B.J. 77 (1971). Article, Products Liability in Hawaii, 14 Haw. B.J. 127 (1979). Article, Filling the "Empty Chair": Some Thoughts About Sugue, 15 Haw. B.J. 69 (1980). UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII LAW REVIEW. Article, the Scope of Liability for Neglect infliction of Emotional Distress: Making "The Punishment Fit the Crime. 1 U. Haw. L. Rev. 1 (1979). Note, Rethinking Products Liability: Kaneko v. Hilo Coast Processing, 6 U. Haw. L. Rev. 613 (1984). Note, Kaeo v. Davis: Informing Juries of the Effects of Their Special Verdicts Under the Law of Joint and Several Liability, 9 U. Haw. L. Rev. 275 (1987). Comment, Armstrong v. Cione and Hao v. Owens -- Illinois: Applying Pure Comparative Negligence Principles to Strict Products Liability Actions, 10 U. Haw. L. Rev. 393 (1988). Note, Bertelmann v. Taas Associates: Limits on Dram Shop Liability; Barring Recovery of Bar Patrons, Their Estates and Survivors, 11 U. Haw. L. Rev. 277 (1989). Article, Tort and Insurance "Reform" in a Common Law Court, 14 U. Haw. L. Rev. 55 (1992). NOTES APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE TITLE CROSS REFERENCES. --As to procedural statutes superseded by the rules of the court, see note preceding Title 32. As to applicability of rules, see HRCP, Rules 1 and 81; HRPP, Rules 1 and 54; Circuit Court Rules, Rule 32. For provisions pertaining to the Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution, see Chapter 613. NOTES APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE CHAPTER RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR4th. Escalators. 1 A.L.R.4th 144. Flammable clothing. 1 A.L.R.4th 251. Defect in boat or its parts, supplies, or equipment. 1 A.L.R.4th 411. Defective heating equipment. 1 A.L.R.4th 748. Products liability in connection with prosthesis or other product designed to be surgically implanted in patient's body. 1 A.L.R.4th 921. Manufacturer's liability for injuries caused by repairs made under warranty. 2 A.L.R.4th 576. Diethylstilbestrol. 2 A.L.R.4th 1091. Snow throwers. 2 A.L.R.4th 1284. Defective vehicular windows. 3 A.L.R.4th 489. Farm machinery. 4 A.L.R.4th 13. Liability of owner of dog for dog's biting veterinarian or veterinarian's employee. 4 A.L.R.4th 349. Expert or opinion evidence that product is or is not defective, dangerous, or unreasonably dangerous. 4 A.L.R.4th 651. Vehicular bumpers. 5 A.L.R.4th 483. Personal injury or death allegedly caused by defect in electrical system in motor vehicle. 5 A.L.R.4th 662. Liability of parent for injury to unemancipated child caused by negligence -- modern cases. 6 A.L.R.4th 1066. Clothes dryers. 6 A.L.R.4th 1262. Glue and other adhesive products. 7 A.L.R.4th 155. Elevators. 7 A.L.R.4th 852. Industrial presses. 8 A.L.R.4th 70. Comparative negligence doctrine applied to actions based on strict liability in tort. 9 A.L.R.4th 633. Workers' Compensation Act as furnishing exclusive remedy for employee injured by product manufactured, sold, or distributed by employer. 9 A.L.R.4th 873. Liability of builder of residence for latent defects therein as running to subsequent purchasers from original vendee. 10 A.L.R.4th 385. Transformers and other electrical equipment. 10 A.L.R.4th 854. Ladders. 11 A.L.R.4th 1118. Fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, etc. 12 A.L.R.4th 462. Allowances of punitive damages. 13 A.L.R.4th 52. Statute prohibiting use of name descriptive of engineering by business organization not practicing profession of engineering. 13 A.L.R.4th 676. Preemption of strict liability in tort by provisions of article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. 15 A.L.R.4th 791. Firearms, ammunition, and chemical weapons. 15 A.L.R.4th 910. Tire rims and wheels. 16 A.L.R.4th 137. Effect of adoption of comparative negligence rules on assumption of risk. 16 A.L.R.4th 700. Liability of check printer for errors in identification or routing codes printed on check. 18 A.L.R.4th 923. Firefighting equipment. 19 A.L.R.4th 326. Third person, other than owner of animal or owner or operator of motor vehicle, for damage to motor vehicle or injury to person riding therein resulting from collision with domestic animal at large in street or highway. 21 A.L.R.4th 132. Liability for damage to motor vehicle or injury to person riding therein resulting from collision with domestic animal at large in street or highway. 21 A.L.R.4th 159. "Concert of activity" or similar theory as basis for imposing liability upon one or more manufacturers of defective uniform product, in absence of identification of manufacturer of precise unit or batch causing injury. 22 A.L.R.4th 183. Mechanical or chain saws or components thereof. 22 A.L.R.4th 206. Release of, or covenant not to sue, one primarily liable for tort, but expressly reserving rights against one secondarily liable, as bar to recovery against latter. 24 A.L.R.4th 547. Negligence of spouse or child as barring or reducing recovery for loss of consortium by other spouse or parent. 25 A.L.R.4th 118. Contribution from joint tortfeasor who is spouse or otherwise in close familial relationship to injured party. 25 A.L.R.4th 1120. Adequacy of warning provided to user of product. 26 A.L.R.4th 377. Negligence of one parent contributing to injury or death of child as barring or reducing damages recoverable by other parent for losses suffered by other parent as result of injury or death of child. 26 A.L.R.4th 396. Protective clothing and equipment. 27 A.L.R.4th 815. Liability for damage to motor vehicle or injury to person riding therein resulting from collision with domestic animal at large in street or highway. 29 A.L.R.4th 431. Liability of dog owner for injuries sustained by person frightened by dog. 30 A.L.R.4th 986. Professional services within meaning of statute preserving individual liability of professional employees of professional corporation, association, or partnership. 31 A.L.R.4th 898. Pest control or inspection contractor, liability for work and representations. 32 A.L.R.4th 682. Strict products liability for failure to warn as dependent on defendant's knowledge of danger. 33 A.L.R.4th 368. Stud guns, staple guns, or parts thereof. 33 A.L.R.4th 1189. Household appliance: liability of manufacturer or seller. 34 A.L.R.4th 95. Household equipment relating to storage, preparation, cooking, and disposal of food. 35 A.L.R.4th 663. Patent or obvious dangers. 35 A.L.R.4th 861. Furnishings for home or office. 36 A.L.R.4th 170. Bottle explosion or breakage. 36 A.L.R.4th 419. Liability of person furnishing, installing, or servicing burglary or fire alarm system for burglary or fire loss. 37 A.L.R.4th 47. Post-injury measures undertaken by defendant. 38 A.L.R.4th 583. Duty of manufacturer or seller of component part incorporated in another product to warn of dangers. 39 A.L.R.4th 6. Manufacturer's responsibility for defective component supplied by another and incorporated in product. 39 A.L.R.4th 6. Liability of professional corporaton of lawyers, or individual members thereof, for malpractice or other tort of another member. 39 A.L.R.4th 556. Manufacturer's liability for injuries caused by repairs made under warranty. 40 A.L.R.4th 1218. Alteration of product after it leaves hands of manufacturer or seller as affecting liability for product-caused harm. 41 A.L.R.4th 47. Construction and effect of statutes which make parent, custodian, or other person signing minor's application for vehicle operator's license liable for licensee's negligence or wilful misconduct. 45 A.L.R.4th 87. Construction materials or insulation containing formaldehyde. 45 A.L.R.4th 751. Liability of manufacturer or seller as affected by failure of subsequent party in distribution chain to remedy or warn against defect of which he knew. 45 A.L.R.4th 777. Perfumes, colognes, or deodorants. 46 A.L.R.4th 1197. Evidence of industry custom or practice. 47 A.L.R.4th 621. Liability for damage to motor vehicle or injury to person riding therein from collision with runaway horse, or horse left unattended or untied in street. 49 A.L.R.4th 653. Liability for personal injury or death caused by trespassing or intruding livestock. 49 A.L.R.4th 710. Duty of insurer to pay for independent counsel when conflict of interest exists between insured and insurer. 50 A.L.R.4th 932. Sufficiency of evidence to support product misuse defense in product liability actions concerning athletic, exercise, or recreational equipment. 50 A.L.R.4th 1226. Joint venturers' comparative liability for losses in absence of express agreement. 51 A.L.R.4th 371. Admissibility of evidence of absence of other accidents in product liability action. 51 A.L.R.4th 1186. Sufficiency of evidence to support product misuse defense in product liability actions concerning wearing apparel. 52 A.L.R.4th 276. Liability of employer, supervisor, or manager for intentionally or recklessly causing employee emotional distress. 52 A.L.R.4th 853. Tennis club's liability for tennis player's injuries. 52 A.L.R.4th 1253. Attorneys' fees in product liability suit. 53 A.L.R.4th 414. Liability for U-turn automobile collisions. 53 A.L.R.4th 849. Parent's right to recover for loss of consortium in connection with injury to child. 54 A.L.R.4th 112. Absolute liability: personal soaps. 54 A.L.R.4th 574. Baseball player's right to recover for baseball-related personal injuries from nonplayer. 55 A.L.R.4th 664. Sufficiency of evidence to support product misuse defense in product liability actions concerning electrical generation and transmission equipment. 55 A.L.R.4th 1010. Sufficiency of evidence to support product misuse defense in product liability action concerning lawn mowers. 55 A.L.R.4th 1062. Civil liability for tobacco sales to minors. 55 A.L.R.4th 1238. Commercial renter's negligence liability for customer's personal injuries. 57 A.L.R.4th 1186. Sufficiency of evidence to support product misuse defense in product liability actions concerning paint, cleaners, or other chemicals. 58 A.L.R.4th 76. Sufficiency of evidence to support product misuse defense in actions concerning bottles, cans, storage tanks, or other containers. 58 A.L.R.4th 160. Local government tort liability: minority as affecting notice of claim requirement. 58 A.L.R.4th 402. Toxic shock syndrome. 59 A.L.R.4th 50. Applicability of res ipsa loquitur in case of multiple, nonmedical defendants -- modern status. 59 A.L.R.4th 201. Admissibility of impeached witness' prior consistent statement -- modern state civil cases. 59 A.L.R.4th 1000. Primary liability of private chain franchisor for injury or death caused by franchise premises or equipment. 59 A.L.R.4th 1142. Comparative fault: calculation of net recovery by applying percentage of plaintiff's fault before or after subtracting amount of settlement by less than all joint tortfeasors. 71 A.L.R.4th 1108. Products liability: tractors. 75 A.L.R.4th 312. Products liability: contributory negligence or assumption of risk as defense in negligence action based on failure to provide safety device for product causing injury. 75 A.L.R.4th 443. Products liability: contributory negligence or assumption of risk as defense in action for strict liability or breach of warranty based on failure to provide safety device for product causing injury. 75 A.L.R.4th 538. Rescue doctrine: applicability and application of comparative negligence principles. 75 A.L.R.4th 875. Products liability: general recreational equipment. 77 A.L.R.4th 1121. Products liability: mechanical amusement rides and devices. 77 A.L.R.4th 1152. Burden of proving feasibility of alternative safe design in products liability action based on defective design. 78 A.L.R.4th 154. Validity, construction, and effect of statute limiting amount recoverable in dram shop action. 78 A.L.R.4th 542. Right of child to action against mother for infliction of prenatal injuries. 78 A.L.R.4th 1082. Products liability: hair straighteners and relaxants. 84 A.L.R.4th 1090. Products liability: cutting or heating torches. 84 A.L.R.4th 1123. Modern status of rule imputing motor vehicle driver's negligence to passenger on joint venture theory. 3 A.L.R.5th 1. Insured's recovery of uninsured motorist claim against insurer as affecting subsequent recovery against tortfeasors causing injury. 3 A.L.R.5th 746. Products liability: roofs and roofing materials. 3 A.L.R.5th 851. Liability of owner or operator of business premises for injuries from electrically operated door. 44 A.L.R.5th 525. Products liability: cement and concrete. 60 A.L.R.5th 413. Products liability: Manufacturer's postsale obligation to modify, repair, or recall product. 47 A.L.R.5th 395. Excessiveness or adequacy of damages awarded for injuries to head or brain. 50 A.L.R.5th 1. Products liability: recovery for injury or death resulting from intentional inhalation of product's fumes or vapors to produce intoxicating or similar effect. 50 A.L.R.5th 275. Excessiveness or adequacy of damages awarded for injuries to nerves or nervous system. 51 A.L.R.5th 467. |
