10 results for “Reaction Department”
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · March 20, 1990 · in the opinion
Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990)
…test. I imagine you had some reaction to what he said to you. THE WITNESS: He just said he seen \[sic\] some spots on the X-ray. THE COURT: Did you react to that or no…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion
Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)
…become imbedded in lung or other tissue. The reaction consists of the body "walling off" the foreign matter with fibrous cells such that it eventually produces scar-like tissue which builds up over many years. ..... Pulmonary…
-
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…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion
Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)
…Perhaps, even more pertinent is the reaction of the trial courts. In dealing with the precise dilemma faced by appellant herein, the Honorable Lois Forer of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia has stated: The…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)
…over recent articles carried in local and national newspapers concerning mesothelioma and stated that "unwise treatment of research data in public discussions could cause reactions which were not justified by the state of scientific knowledge." \ \ \ \ \ \ Industry…
-
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…