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

Search

5 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · March 5, 1986 · in the opinion

    Herber v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …concern. However, based upon the reaction of the Supreme Court of New Jersey when confronted with similar arguments, we do not believe that this concern would deter that Court from embracing the view here expressed. See…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 1, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1981)

    …972 (5th Cir. 1975) (products liability case time-barred because plaintiff brought suit five years after she had been informed that her physical ailments probably resulted from an adverse reaction to the defendant's product). [\1184…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 21, 1985 · in the opinion

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

    …and evokes the strongest of emotions. This prejudice must be coupled with the lack of effectiveness of any limiting instruction to eliminate the emotional reaction from the minds of the jury. Looking just at the first…

  5. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 3, 1982 · in the opinion

    Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)

    …24 Wayne L.Rev. 1641 (1978) (British reaction to first breath rule announced in Cartledge). Other jurisdictions have viewed subjecting the plaintiff to exposure as a continuing tort and have adopted what may be called the…