Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By the Court,
Saitta, J.:
The United States District Court, District of Nevada, has certified the question of whether Nevada law recognizes a heeding presumption in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases. A heeding presumption is a rebuttable presumption that allows a fact-finder to presume that the injured plaintiff would have heeded an adequate warning if one had been given. Thus, it shifts the burden of proving the element of causation from the plaintiff to the manufacturer. We exercise our discretion to answer this question and conclude that Nevada law does not recognize a…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- Technical Chemical Company v. JacobsTexas Supreme Court · 1972
- Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Cuzze v. University & Community College SystemNevada Supreme Court · 2007
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Williams v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of ClarkNevada Supreme Court · 2011
- Quiana M. B. v. State Department of Family ServicesNevada Supreme Court · 2012
- Karst v. Shur-Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
- Holcomb v. Georgia Pacific, LLCNevada Supreme Court · 2012
- ZURICH AM. INS. CO. VS. IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INS. (NRAP 5)Nevada Supreme Court · 2021
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.