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

Search

39 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 31, 2017 · in the opinion

    Charlevoix v. Caterpillar (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)

    Charlevoix performed clutch and gasket work on Ford vehicles owned by family and friends. (D.I. 216, Ex. 3 at 152:16-19) However, Mr. Milligan could not recall the manufacturer of any clutches or gaskets…

  2. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion

    Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)

    …J., dissenting). In some cases, it has proven difficult to apply. See, e.g., Stockton v. Ford Motor Company, No. W2016-01175-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2021760, at [\12]-15 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed May…

  3. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · December 28, 2017 · in the opinion

    Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (2017)

    …cases, "Pennsylvania law requires that a plaintiff prove two elements: "that the product was defective, and that the defect was the substantial factor in causing the injury." Rost v. Ford Motor Company, 637 Pa. 625, 151…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · November 5, 1997 · in the opinion

    Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)

    …and a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner." Denny v. Ford Motor Company, 87 N.Y.2d 248…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · September 21, 2015 · in the opinion

    Kochera v. General Electric Company (2015)

    …806 (7th Cir. 2013) (Daubert "remains the gold standard for evaluating the reliability of expert testimony."). The Seventh Circuit's Opinion in Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) provides the…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · September 2, 2015 · in the opinion

    Bell v. Abb Group, Inc. (2015)

    …806 (7th Cir. 2013) (Daubert "remains the gold standard for evaluating the reliability of expert testimony."). The Seventh Circuit's Opinion in Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) provides the…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · October 6, 2016 · in the opinion

    Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2016)

    The rules of evidence do not permit an expert to testify that "\[j\]ust because we cannot rule anything out" that "we can rule everything in." Smith v. Ford Motor Co., No. 08-630, 2013 WL…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · March 6, 2017 · in the opinion

    Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2017)

    …to say, in the realm of asbestos exposure, the percentages alone simply do not bear out specific causation testimony one way or the other. See Yates v. Ford Motor Co., 113 F. Supp. 3d 841, 847…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · August 2, 2012 · in the opinion

    Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (2012)

    …distribution is that " \[t\]hey are an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries resulting from defective products." Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal.2d 256…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · March 6, 2017 · in the opinion

    Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2017)

    …plaintiff's exposure. See Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 2016 WL 6876490, at [\8] (Pa. Nov. 22, 2016) (permitting expert opinion that "Rost's exposures to asbestos at Smith Motors were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate…

  11. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · June 26, 2016 · in the opinion

    Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (2016)

    …466, 472, 804 P.2d 659 (1991); RCW 4.22.920. \[22\] Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash.2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969) (applying § 402A strict product liability to manufacturers); Seattle-First Nat…

  12. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · March 6, 2009 · in the opinion

    Cardinal Industrial Insulation Co., Inc. v. Norris (2009)

    …jury instruction in every duty supported by the facts\[.\]" Id. We believe the trial court satisfied that entitlement with a liability instruction — its Instruction No. 1 — substantively indistinct from that in Ford Motor Co. v. Fulkerson…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · September 11, 2017 · in the opinion

    MacCormack v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)

    …that under some circumstances even in the case of default, where a party actively participated in the litigation previously, collateral estoppel would apply); see also Ellis v. Ford Motor Co., 628 F. Supp. 849, 857 (D…

  14. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · June 11, 2002 · in the opinion

    Crane, Inc. v. Scribner (2002)

    …2d at 996. In adopting 1990 as the critical date when the cause of action arose, the court, though supposedly applying Grimshaw, essentially applied the manifestation test. In Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Campbell v. American Standard, Inc. (2009)

    …suitable place for the action, the court must consider a variety of factors, including whether the defendants are amenable to personal jurisdiction in the alternative forum. (Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995…

  16. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · December 19, 2019 · in the opinion

    Daniels v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2019)

    …App. 3d 26, 37, 342 Ill.Dec. 678, 932 N.E.2d 1139 (2010), and Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 398 Ill. App. 3d 222, 271, 337 Ill.Dec. 788, 923 N.E.2d 347 (2010…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2000 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2000)

    …society ascribes some fault to this conduct." (Id. at p. 1188, 272 Cal.Rptr. 304.) Quoting Montez v. Ford Motor Co. \[ (1980) \] 101 Cal.App.3d 315, 318-319, 161 Cal.Rptr. 578, the court continued…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · November 20, 2019 · in the opinion

    Mosher v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2019)

    …Defendants, represented by Kelly A. Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. Siemens Industry, Inc., successor in interest to Siemens…

  19. Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 18, 2015 · in the opinion

    Voelker v. John Crane (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2015)

    …merit. Wherefore, it is hereby, ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion is granted and defendant's cross motion is denied. SO ORDERED. \[1\] Those entities were: Combustion Engineering; Ford Motor Co.; Foster-Wheeler Energy Co., LLC.; Garlock Sealing…

  20. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · February 19, 2020 · in the opinion

    Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (2020)

    …actual, product-specific causation in many asbestos cases, the courts have come to accept abstract assessments of increased risk as proxies for traditional substantial-factor causation. See Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 637 Pa. 625, 668…