Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Expert Analysis

'Duty To Warn' Requires Nuanced Reading In Calif.

Law360, New York (May 29, 2014, 6:12 PM EDT) -- Two recent California cases demonstrate that the principles supporting the duty to warn in the area of negligence and strict liability require nuanced evaluation to ensure that slight factual differences from the controlling case law do not result in a court making a wholesale change to the legal landscape. Sanchez v. Hitachi Koki Co. Ltd. and Kesner v. Superior Court are useful illustrations of this issue, with one California court reaching a result demanded by the controlling case law even in the presence of allegedly distinguishing facts and another court's use of slight factual differences to establish a completely new duty to warn....

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.


A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Related Sections

Law Firms

Companies

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!