theory underlying claim in New Jersey

2007Indeed, the PLA "governs `any claim or action . . . for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for . . . breach of an express warranty.'" Id. at 318 , 825 A. 2d 554 (alterations in original)(quoting and citing N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(3); Tirrell v. Navistar Int'l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. 390, 398 , 591 A. 2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A. 2d 166 (1991)).

2007Indeed, the PLA "governs `any claim or action . . . for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for . . . breach of an express warranty.'" Id. at 318 , 825 A. 2d 554 (alterations in original)(quoting and citing N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(3); Tirrell v. Navistar Int'l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. 390, 398 , 591 A. 2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A. 2d 166 (1991)).

2008The Court's determination that plaintiffs' public nuisance theory was non-cognizable was based in part on its recognition of the "expansive and inclusive," id. at 436, 924 A. 2d 484 , language adopted by the Legislature in defining "product liability action" to include "any claim or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of an express warranty," N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1b(3)—language that the Court characterized as "encompassing virtually all possible causes of action relating to harms caused

2008The Court's determination that plaintiffs' public nuisance theory was non-cognizable was based in part on its recognition of the "expansive and inclusive," id. at 436, 924 A. 2d 484 , language adopted by the Legislature in defining "product liability action" to include "any claim or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of an express warranty," N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1b(3)—language that the Court characterized as "encompassing virtually all possible causes of action relating to harms caused

2007Indeed, the PLA "governs `any claim or action . . . for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for . . . breach of an express warranty.'" Id. at 318 , 825 A. 2d 554 (alterations in original)(quoting and citing N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(3); Tirrell v. Navistar Int'l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. 390, 398 , 591 A. 2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A. 2d 166 (1991)).

2003The Product Liability Act governs "any claim or action ... for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for ... breach of an express warranty." N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(3); see Tirrell v. Navistar Int'l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. *558 390, 398, 591 A. 2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A. 2d 166 (1991). "[A]n adequate warning is one that includes the directions, communications, and information essential to make the use of a product safe." Freund v. Cellofilm Props., Inc., 87 N.J. 229, 243 , 432 A. 2d 925 (1981).

2020"A product liability action is defined as 'any claim or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of an express warranty.'" Sinclair v. Merck & Co., 195 N.J. 51, 62 (2008) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:58C- 1(b)(3)).

2008The recent opinion in Sinclair supports the conclusion that claims for harm caused by a product are governed by the PLA irrespective of the theory underlying the claim. 195 N.J. at 65 , 948 A. 2d 587 .

2025"The Legislature passed the [PL] Act as 'remedial legislation to establish clear rules [in] . . . actions for damages for harm caused by products, including certain principles under which liability is imposed.'" Roberts v. Rich Foods, Inc., 139 N.J. 365, 374 (1995) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1).

2017"A product liability action is defined as 'any claim or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of an express warranty.'" Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 211 N.J. 362, 386-87 (2012) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(3)).

2003The Product Liability Act governs "any claim or action ... for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for ... breach of an express warranty." N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(3); see Tirrell v. Navistar Int'l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. *558 390, 398, 591 A. 2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A. 2d 166 (1991). "[A]n adequate warning is one that includes the directions, communications, and information essential to make the use of a product safe." Freund v. Cellofilm Props., Inc., 87 N.J. 229, 243 , 432 A. 2d 925 (1981).

2003The Product Liability Act governs "any claim or action ... for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for ... breach of an express warranty." N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(3); see Tirrell v. Navistar Int'l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. *558 390, 398, 591 A. 2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A. 2d 166 (1991). "[A]n adequate warning is one that includes the directions, communications, and information essential to make the use of a product safe." Freund v. Cellofilm Props., Inc., 87 N.J. 229, 243 , 432 A. 2d 925 (1981).

1972While it has been said that the doctrine does not apply to breach of warranty cases, United States Rubber Co. v. Bauer, 319 F. 2d 463, 468 (8th Cir. 1963), under the circumstances here it may be said that in a broad sense the theory underlying the doctrine of res ipsa does apply, i. e., the circumstances give rise reasonably to an inference of a defect in the carton.