51 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 3
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 26, 2014
Scott v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
The court affirmed the judgment and compensatory damages for Patrick and Sharon Scott against Ford Motor Co. on the failure to warn claims, and reversed the ruling that barred punitive damages, remanding for a trial on…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2012
Campbell v. Ford Motor Company (2012)
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiff Honer (continued by her daughter Mary Campbell) against Ford, holding Ford owed her no duty, so Ford prevailed. Under the Rowland factors as clarified in Cabral, an…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 29, 2011
Adams v. Ford Motor Company (2011)
…so Ford Motor Company keeps its award of costs including $167,570 in expert witness fees after its defense verdict. A prevailing defendant's section 998 offer is presumed reasonable when it wins a more favorable…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 30, 2010
Russell v. Ford Motor Company (2010)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's liability and damages findings against Ford Motor Company, but vacated the judgment and remanded so Ford's counsel could review the settlement agreements before a new judgment was…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 5, 2017
Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (2017)
…of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Exxon Mobil, Ford and Rossmoor, rejecting plaintiffs' challenges to the summary adjudication for Exxon, the nonsuit for Rossmoor, the jury instructions on Ford, and the defense verdict for Exxon. An…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 8, 2010
Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (2010)
Robert Reaser served in the Navy from 1951 to 1971, working as a pipefitter and welder on Navy vessels, including time in San Diego and Long Beach. He later lived in Florida and worked in construction and on automobiles. He was diagnosed with…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 8, 2016
Lepore v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (2016)
The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Ford, Navistar and Kelsey-Hayes, finding triable issues on whether Lepore was exposed to asbestos from their products, and affirmed summary judgment for Gibbs International. A plaintiff in…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 16, 2010 · in the opinion
Teruel-Armstrong v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc. (2010)
…51 Cal.App.4th 1447; Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262; Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202; see also New Albertsons, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2013)
…Yukevich, Steven D. Smelser, Patricia Ball; Dykema Gossett, John M. Thomas, Tamara A. Bush, for Appellant Ford Motor Company. Herzfeld & Rubin, Craig L. Winterman, Tara-Jane Flynn; Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, Laurie J. Hepler, Nathaniel K. Fisher…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 21, 2014 · in the opinion
Beckering v. Shell Oil Co. (2014)
…by a family member who laundered asbestos-contaminated work clothes. In Campbell, the plaintiff filed a premises liability action against Ford Motor Company, alleging she contracted mesothelioma as a result of her secondary exposure to asbestos…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 3, 2014 · in the opinion
Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. (2014)
…Cal.App.4th at p. 19, the plaintiff filed a premises liability action against Ford Motor Company, alleging that she contracted mesothelioma as a result of her secondary exposure to asbestos, which occurred when she shook…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 25, 2014 · in the opinion
Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2014)
Ford Motor Company During Trial Abex contends the judgment must be reversed "based on the \[trial\] court's prejudicial decision to apply Campbell mid-trial." Abex characterizes "the publication of Campbell" as "\[a\]n unexpected event…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2014 · in the opinion
Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2014)
…landowner's premises. The claim against Ford Motor Company asserted in Campbell was based on Ford's passive involvement as owner of the plant in which an independent contractor was installing asbestos insulation. Plaintiff's claim…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 28, 2010 · in the opinion
Johnson v. Certainteed Corporation (2010)
…Vandermark held that the lower court erred in granting a nonsuit on the plaintiff's claim that Ford Motor Company (Ford) could not be strictly liable for a product defect simply because it relied on its…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2017 · in the opinion
Johnson v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2017)
…identified six specific trucks owned by Bekins during the years of Father's employment: two Ford Motor Company (Ford) bobtail trucks (1965 and 1969 models) and four medium-duty International Harvester Company (International) semitruck tractors (1965…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 2, 2013
Swanson v. Simpson Timber Company (2013)
Affirmed the trial court's judgment of nonsuit for Simpson Timber Company, holding it owed no duty for secondary exposure and that the self-exposure claim was barred by workers' compensation exclusivity. Under the Rowland factors…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 2, 2017 · in the opinion
Beckering v. Shell Oil Company (2017)
…she laundered. In our prior decision in this matter (Beckering v. Shell Oil Company (Nov. 21, 2014, B256407) \[nonpub. opn.\] (Beckering I)), guided by Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell)…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 10, 2013 · in the opinion
Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (2013)
…63; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262-263.) Strict liability is justified as a means to spread the costs of injuries resulting from dangerous and defective products among the products' manufacturers…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2019 · in the opinion
Lopez v. the Hillshire Brands Company (2019)
…harm. It cites the rule that "\\[m\]ere presence at a site where asbestos was present is insufficient to establish legally significant asbestos exposure.'" (Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 288…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 8, 2018 · in the opinion
Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Company (2018)
…transmission." (Id. at p. 1140; followed by Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 275-276.) The court limited the duty to "members of a worker's household, i.e., persons who…