Texas made a targeted amendment to one of its key products liability statutes governing the rental and leasing of motor vehicles. The Texas Legislature recently amended Section 82.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—a statute that significantly limits the exposure of vehicle lessors and rental companies in failure-to-retrofit claims. The statute helps protect commercial vehicle lessors from being required to adopt the newest technology time and time again.
A recent ruling from the Texas Supreme Court reinforces a demanding evidentiary standard in premises liability cases and reminds plaintiffs that circumstantial evidence of a hazard’s cause is not the same as evidence of its duration. In H-E-B, LP v. Marissa Peterson, the Texas Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who bring premises liability claims based on constructive knowledge must produce “evidence that the condition existed for a sufficient duration before the time and place of the injury for a premises owner to have discovered it.”1
The D.C. Court of Appeals recently granted rehearing en banc in this case, which vacated the
March 5, 2026 panel decision described below.1 The case will be reargued before the full court, and the analysis in this post reflects the panel decision as issued.
On March 5, 2026, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals invalidated D.C.’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds and vacated the defendant’s related firearm convictions. In Benson v. United States,2 the majority framed these magazines as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment when they are in “common and ubiquitous use” by law-abiding citizens and found no historical tradition permitting blanket bans on such items. Applying the Supreme Court’s Heller/Bruen/Rahimi framework, the court found no tradition of prohibiting arms in common use and rejected analogies like gunpowder storage limits and Bowie knife regulations, which were regulations, not bans.
On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles County jury in California’s Superior Court returned a $6 million verdict in favor of a minor child Plaintiff, K.G.M., against two major social media platforms. The jury awarded Plaintiff both punitive and compensatory damages.1 The negligence claims in the case centered on the allegation that the Defendants’ “addictive” product designs resulted in harm to the Plaintiff. The claim was that the platforms themselves caused the decline in the Plaintiff’s mental health.
In January 2024, Plaintiff Graciela Dela Torre settled her long-term disability claim with Nippon Life Insurance Company (Nippon) and dismissed her case with prejudice. Later, Plaintiff
Dela Torre questioned her settlement. But she did not return to her attorney to ask questions. Instead, she turned to ChatGPT, a widely used AI chatbot.
On March 19, 2026, the Supreme Court of Kentucky issued its decision in Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams, affirming the duty to prevent take home exposure in asbestos claims on summary judgment.
Artificial intelligence is no longer just a buzzword in product safety. AI is actively reshaping the way companies identify hazards, manage recalls, communicate warnings, and address the unique risks of lithium-ion batteries. As products become more complex, consumer complaints arrive faster, regulators demand greater transparency, and recall costs soar. AI offers a powerful solution to traditional approaches, but only when it’s used thoughtfully and with legal awareness.
On February 24, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana awarding damages to plaintiffs in a Libby, Montana asbestos case, holding that BNSF Railway cannot be held strictly liable for asbestos-contaminated vermiculite that accumulated on its tracks and railyard.
On February 11, 2026, Judge Juan R. Sánchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to remand in a high-profile toxic torts case. Former professional baseball players and representatives of their estates filed a lawsuit, claiming that extended exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) while playing for a team that used artificial turf in its stadium led to the development of various cancers. Plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s removal was untimely, as it was filed 175 days after service of the original complaint, and also claimed the federal contractor defense lacked adequate evidence.
Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), codified at Section 23.303 of the Texas Government Code, requires Texas courts to follow a strict schedule for hearings and rulings on motions for summary judgment. Effective September 1, 2025, SB 293 aims to streamline judicial efficiency and provide Texas litigants with more predictability. Relatedly, Texas House Bill 16 (HB 16), effective December 4, 2025, modifies the timelines for judicial action initially set by SB 293 in two ways:
1) by increasing the time courts have to consider motions for summary judgment from 45 days after the motion is filed to 60 days; and
2) by allowing courts up to 90 days after a summary judgment motion is filed to consider it, but only under very limited circumstances. Motions for summary judgment filed between September 1, 2025 and December 3, 2025 are subject to the deadlines originally introduced by SB 293.