Skip to main content

Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C.

Citations

  • 898 A.2d 777
  • 278 Conn. 305
  • 23 A.L.R. 6th 863
  • 2006 Conn. LEXIS 169

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • extending the LID from “the context of prescription drugs” to “prescription medical device cases”
  • “a manufacturer’s duty to warn of dangers associated with its products ... runs to the ultimate user or consumer of those products.”
  • act “was intended to serve as the exclusive remedy for a party who seeks recompense for . . . injuries caused by a product defect” [internal quotation marks omitted]
  • ‘‘[a] prod- uct may be defective due to a flaw in the manufacturing process, a design defect or because of inadequate warn- ings or instructions’’ [internal quotation marks omit- ted]
  • ‘‘we conclude that whether [the] actions [of the defen- dant’s agent] were in derogation of the warnings in the technical manual was an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment’’
  • vaginal sling to combat female urinary stress incontinence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.