8 results for “Reaction Department”
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · November 18, 1993 · in the opinion
Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1993)
…in physical pain. Mr. Ben had been employed at the Petrotex Refinery in the labor department as an insulator. He worked on a daily basis as a sandblaster throughout his tenure at Petrotex, from 1958 until…
-
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 · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 1996 · in the opinion
Armstrong World Industries v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. (1996)
…of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 1996 - Goo… "This process — inhalation of asbestos fibers, the inflammatory reaction, and the resulting fibrosis — characterizes the disease asbestosis. When the fibrosis is extensive enough, i.e., when…
-
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 · 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 · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 11, 1994 · in the opinion
DiDio v. Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. (1994)
…565a-566a, 571a-575a. James Didio testified that he suffers great anxiety as a result of his diagnosis and described his initial reaction to the diagnosis of his conditions as devastation. N.T. 9/20/91…