5 results for “Reaction Department”
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 9, 1991 · in the opinion
Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1991)
…On redirect, Abrams stated that, assuming (1) Cochran worked with amosite asbestos in the pipe department at the plant; and (2) Manville delivered 325 tons of chrysotile asbestos to the plant, Cochran could have inhaled some…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 14, 1999 · in the opinion
Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)
…supra 671 A.2d at 1155 (reasoning that plaintiff injured by adverse reaction to prescription drug could not demonstrate causal connection between injury and manufacturer's allegedly deficient warning because plaintiff's treating physician testified that…
-
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…
-
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…