10 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · January 2, 2024 · in the opinion
Wagner v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2024)
…A WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, DCO LLC F/K/A DANA COMPANIES, LLC, DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, INC., EATON CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN- INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER, INC, ECHLIN INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · July 19, 2022 · in the opinion
Pomponi v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2022)
…his deposition, decedent testified that, at various job sites during his career as an electrician, he worked as close as five feet from flooring installers installing Amtico asbestos-containing floor tiles and sheet vinyl flooring, which…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 17, 2019
Srica v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on general and specific causation. A defendant cannot win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in plaintiffs' proof; it must make a prima facie showing…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2020
Richards v. American Biltrite (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dis. Asbestos, 2020)
…could not have contributed to the plaintiff's disease. Even if it did, competing expert affidavits on general and specific causation raise fact issues for trial. Causation; Product Identification; Expert Testimony Worksites: grocery stores in Buffalo…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · April 11, 2023 · in the opinion
Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2023)
…rationale for why it should can be gleamed from the California law cited by the plaintiff. California follows the general rule of no duty to warn, but recognizes exceptions to that doctrine.\[13\] In Sherman v…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · October 12, 2021 · in the opinion
Faivor v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2021)
…(2) that the toxin is capable of causing the particular injuries plaintiff suffered (general causation) and (3) that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause such injuries (specific causation)" (Sean R…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 23, 2018 · in the opinion
Cohen v. American Biltrite (2018)
…are susceptible of expert interpretation (States v Lourdes Hosp., 100 NY2d 208, 212-213 \[2003\]; Styles v General Motors Corp., 20 AD3d 338, 340 \[1st Dept 2005\]), rather than simply the jurors' own lay interpretation without…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · May 19, 2023 · in the opinion
Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2023)
…l\]ike a number of other jurisdictions, Ohio follows the general rule that a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of adjacent parts supplied by a third party, the so-called bare metal defense…
-
Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · April 7, 2011 · in the opinion
Carlson v. 84 Lumber Company (2011)
…fourth specific torts factor is not useful to this Court's choice of law analysis. 2 Application of General Interest-Weighing Factors The choice of law analysis may not always turn on the quantity of contacts…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 31, 2020 · in the opinion
Petit v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
…testimony of Craig Mountz, AMMCO's corporate representative. The New York Times article highlights the use of asbestos in the industry in general, but does not aid Plaintiff in satisfying the Sweredoski standard. The Mountz testimony…