When claiming under Manufacturer&#39;s warranty, how can Plaintiff prove never breaching Manufacturer&#39;s proper care and use instructions? Many non-stick products are sold with a limited lifetime warranty, e.g. for their NONstickiness. Presume that a consumer has perfectly followed, e.g., manufacturer's proper care and use instructions. I read about this class action, but I cannot find it on CanLII. But when Consumer pleaded a breach of this lifetime warranty, Defendant Manufacturer alleged that Plaintiff breached Manufacturer's instructions. Upon inspection of Plaintiff's used product, Defendant allegedly found that Plaintiff negligently either used its non-stick cookware over high heat, AND/OR held acidic foods in the pan, AND/OR left food scraps to dry on the pan, AND/OR scratched the NONstick coating with metal utensils and/or scouring agents and/or abrasive sponges, AND/OR held acidic foods in the pan. As an example, see this blog post. As alternative pleading, Defendant put Plaintiff to strict proof that Plaintiff fulfilled manufacturer's instructions. On a balance of probabilities, how can Plaintiff gainsay Defendant, and prove this kind of negative that Plaintiff never &quot;used its non-stick cookware over high heat AND/OR&quot; etc...? Obviously, Plaintiff cannot realistically record continuous 24/7 video footage of the pan, since the time of purchase and contract formation! Some examples are below: Cuisinart's NONstick Hard-Anodized Skillet T-fal's Intuition 26 cm Frypan Meyer Confederation's Everyday Pan
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit Roughly “she who asserts must prove.” The manufacturer is asserting actions by the consumer - the manufacturer has to prove they happened, the consumer does not have to prove they didn’t.
I've answered this in the context of US patent law, but similar principles apply elsewhere in the world. As stated in 35 USC 271, "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent". Thus, a patent provides the patent owner with the right to exclude others from performing these actions, and the right to sue anyone who does perform these actions (both to stop them from infringing the patent, and to collect monetary damages for their infringement). Creating an infringing product and then licensing it under the GPL (or any other scheme) does not change the fact that it infringes a patent. 35 USC 271 also states that "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer". This means that, even if the creator of the infringing product does not perform any infringing acts in the US, the act of offering it for free use could be construed as induced infringement of the patent, and they could still be sued for that infringement.
It is conceivable that A's employer would claim that the intellectual property was actually created by A in the course of their employment rather than B. That would be a question of fact for the lawsuit to determine. Realistically, assuming A and B both testify that B created the intellectual property with no input from A and A's employer had only the IP address as evidence, it is pretty unlikely that the fact finder would find that A created the intellectual property. A's employer would almost certainly need to provide some additional evidence that would show that the balance of probabilities favored the employer's position (i.e. A works at FedEx writing software for package logistics, B is a 12 year old kid with no formal computer science training, and the intellectual property in question involves the implementation of sophisticated graph traversal algorithms that would be common in package logistics applications).
To win a negligence claim, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the plaintiff must have suffered actual harm, the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of that harm, and that harm was foreseeable. If they fail to prove any one of the limbs, the claim fails entirely. The eggshell skull principle which is what you are referring to goes to the amount of damage (and damages) that happens: not to if there is negligence in the first place. The foundation case in the modern law of negligence is Donoghue v Stevenson: the facts involved Mrs Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. A dead snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and she sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached, because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm of consumers. Lord Atkin define neighbour (people to whom a duty is owed) as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." The determination of the existence of a duty is a matter of law, not facts, therefore the decision rests with the judge not the jury. However, the law needs to consider the particular facts of the relationship including the particular risk of injury which eventuated, the defendant's relationship to that risk and the nature of the damage suffered although no one factor is itself sufficient. Of relevance to your hypothetical plaintiff is Bolton v Stone, the plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the ground; the defendants were members of the club committee. The judges held that as it was not reasonably foreseeable that a cricket ball would be hit so far, the club was not negligent. In the words of Lord Normand, "It is not the law that precautions must be taken against every peril that can be foreseen by the timorous." In essence, Stone being hit by a cricket ball was, in your words, an accident even though it was caused by the cricket club. It is not reasonably foreseeable that brushing against a stranger in, say, a corridor would cause them harm. Therefore the act is not negligent even though, for this particular person, harm can be caused. In the absence of negligence, the eggshell skull principle is moot. However, in circumstances where the defendant has knowledge of the plaintiff's condition, brushing against them may be negligent depending on all the surrounding circumstances.
united-states Absent an agreement to the contrary, the employer can make expert testimony a requirement for further employment, and the employee can quit if this is not acceptable. As a practical matter, employees almost always agree to do so without any serious objections to testifying as experts on behalf of their employers. Also, U.S. courts distinguish between retained and non-retained expert testimony. A retained expert is someone testifying solely because they were hired to do so in particular case. A non-retained expert is someone who has personal knowledge of the events in the case who has expertise in an area and is being asked to testify about that personal knowledge in a manner informed by that person's expertise. A non-retained expert can be compelled to testify by subpoena, even if an agreement for that person to testify as an expert voluntarily is not reached. Many employees asked by an employer to provide expert testimony would fall in the category of a non-retained expert who could be compelled to testify about the matter from their personal knowledge in a manner informed by their expertise, even if they quit. But, a non-retained expert can only be compelled to testify at trial, not to cooperate in preparing for that testimony with an attorney for the employer or preparing a written report in advance of that testimony. Incidentally, it would be the rare exception to the rule for the written report of a retained expert witness in advance of their testimony at trial or in a deposition to make that report stating that opinion under oath. Typically, it would be signed but not sworn to by the expert. the court requires (version 1) the company (version 2) someone with expertise from the company to provide a sworn opinion (something like &quot;the process to do X is Y&quot;), and answer questions in court. In U.S. cases, it isn't &quot;the court&quot; that is proactively telling litigants what evidence they have to provide. The law tells litigants what has to be proved. Sometimes, in U.S. non-criminal litigation, expert testimony from someone is required to proven or disprove an element of a case. For example, in professional malpractice cases, someone with expertise in that profession must testify that the professional did or did not perform the work which is the basis of the lawsuit in a manner that falls below the standard of care for a professional of that type. Other times, expert testimony is one means of many possible means to prove a fact in the case. For example, one could prove lost profits by showing that a specific contract was lost by someone's action, or one could instead hire an expert to show what profits could have been earned if something was done.
Can a party unilaterally prohibit any of its output from use as evidence in litigation? The disclaimer is not really a prohibition, but a warning against relying on the underlying report or product for any of the listed purposes. Thereby the issuer informs that it did not apply, did not attempt to apply, and/or ought not be presumed to have applied, the standards that are requisite or reasonably expected for the listed purposes. Absent a disclaimer of that sort, the issuer exposes itself to liability for losses that could have been prevented had the issuer informed the consumer on what to expect from the product as well as the limitations thereof. Will the courts respect such disclaimers? The disclaimer primarily substantiates a party's objection to the adversary's intent (if any) to use the report or product as evidence. If all parties stipulate that such report be used as evidence, the judge might still have discretion on whether to admit it. But that is different from construing the disclaimer as something the issuer prohibits.
Probably not In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the tort of negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. What standard of conduct do you think your employer failed to conform with? Owning a tree or a parking lot is not, of itself, negligent. Further, the branch fell "during high winds" - the wind is not within your employer's control. Now, if you can prove that your employer knew that the particular tree was ill and likely to drop branches in high winds and failed to do anything about it, that might be considered negligent. I know of a case where a council who had refused permission for a tree to be removed because it was "healthy" was found negligent when that tree latter (in calm winds) dropped a branch on Jaguar.
Similar to this question and this one, the Uniform Commercial Code requires that exclusion of warranty be conspicuous. While it does not specify the manner in which text should be made conspicuous, putting it in all caps certainly has that effect if the surrounding text is in sentence case. The meaning is that all products come with implied warranties of merchantability (it is good enough to be sold to you) and fitness for purpose (it will do what it's meant to, and what you've been told it will do). This text excludes this product from those warranties (that is, those warranties do not apply). It also disclaims liability for claims and damages, which means that if this software causes you harm or damage, you can't file a suit to recover any loss. Whether this is enforceable would be decided by a court.