No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

6 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion

    Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …pleaded that the Defendants' breach of these various duties (as well as the fact that these products precipitated great harm which was not a consequence of any unique or unforeseeable reaction of the user) caused Mr…

  2. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 27, 1986 · in the opinion

    Zurich Ins. Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986)

    …only on a microscopic or subclinical level. Disease is defined as an ongoing process of repair or reaction to injury. The clinicians' definition of "injury" requires that there be some kind of noticeable harm. For example…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · December 9, 1986 · in the opinion

    In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (1986)

    …defendants argument is that comment j applies to products that cause allergic reactions.\[4\] Comment j [\1459] applies to common products, such as strawberries, eggs, and possibly cosmetics, that are otherwise safe yet cause allergic reactions…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 15, 1985 · in the opinion

    Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp. (1985)

    …to bar the proof for purposes of establishing mental anguish. Dartez's own testimony regarding his emotional reaction to the realization of the risks he now faces and Comstock's testimony as to what he told…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987 · in the opinion

    In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)

    …J., dissenting). Whatever may have been the reaction of the courts in earlier times, we are persuaded that the district court properly considered the common law of New Jersey to be within the scope of the…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …cumulative. Because inhaled fibers are not all exhaled, but some remain in the lungs and cause reactions there, the later inhalation of added amounts will cause injury that might not have occurred had exposure ceased. There…