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

Search

495 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 11 of 25

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 10, 2013 · in the opinion

    Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (2013)

    …63; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262-263.) Strict liability is justified as a means to spread the costs of injuries resulting from dangerous and defective products among the products' manufacturers…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · March 29, 2016 · in the opinion

    Dugas v. 3M Company (2016)

    …of products liability" it is unsettled whether the consumer-expectation test, risk-utility test or both should be applied in evaluating an alleged defect. Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So. 2d 103, 106-07 (Fla…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2019 · in the opinion

    Lopez v. the Hillshire Brands Company (2019)

    …harm. It cites the rule that "\\[m\]ere presence at a site where asbestos was present is insufficient to establish legally significant asbestos exposure.'" (Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 288…

  4. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · January 18, 2017 · in the opinion

    Murray v. 3M Company (2017)

    …are found to be in true conflict, then this Court shall apply Rhode Island's interest-weighing approach. See Turcotte v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 173, 176-77 (1st Cir. 1974). In Harodite Indus…

  5. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · June 5, 2018 · in the opinion

    Turcotte v. 3M Company (2018)

    …turns to the two-step choice-of-law analysis, beginning with whether the laws of the two states in question are in conflict. Turcotte v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 173, 177 (1st Cir. 1974)…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2024 · in the opinion

    Williams v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2024)

    …the then-leading case on whether defendants owed a duty of care to prevent take-home or secondary asbestos exposure under California law, Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15. (4 Cetrulo…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 8, 2018 · in the opinion

    Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Company (2018)

    …transmission." (Id. at p. 1140; followed by Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 275-276.) The court limited the duty to "members of a worker's household, i.e., persons who…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · December 29, 2014 · in the opinion

    Sparkman v. AW Chesterton Company (2014)

    …Feb. 28, 2012); Whiting v. CBS Corp., 982 N.E.2d 1224, at [\1] (Mass. App. Ct. 2013); Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 703 A.2d 1315, 1332 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998); Rumery v. Garlock…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · January 27, 2009 · in the opinion

    Martin v. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (2009)

    …II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review As this is a diversity action, Kentucky substantive law applies. Gahafer v. Ford Motor Co., 328 F.3d 859, 861 (6th Cir. 2003). Procedurally, federal standards for summary judgment govern…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · December 15, 2014 · in the opinion

    Comardelle v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company (2014)

    …the states do not conflict \[on the relevant issue\], then no choice-of-law analysis is necessary.'" Schneider Nat'l Transp. v. Ford Motor Co., 280 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting W.R…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021 · in the opinion

    Pizarro v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (2021)

    …formulated. These inferences cannot be based merely on speculation, but they may be established by circumstantial evidence, in accordance with ordinary standards of proof. Romo v. Ford Motor Co., 99 Cal.App. 4th 1115, 1141 (2002)…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 5, 2015 · in the opinion

    Comardelle v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company (2015)

    …similar expert causation testimony based on the "every exposure" theory. First, in Smith v. Ford Motor Co., the district court excluded Dr. Hammar's opinion that a plaintiff's exposure to brake dust caused his mesothelioma…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 24, 2017 · in the opinion

    Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (2017)

    …E.D. La. July 18, 2014) (applying test); In re Ford Motor Co. Vehicle Paint Litig., 1997 WL 539665, at [\3] (same). The Court finds that Sheppard has once again failed to plead the "who, what…

  14. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · May 28, 2019 · in the opinion

    Leren v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2019)

    …Id. at 452. \[22\] Id. \[23\] Id. \[24\] Id. at 452-53. \[25\] Id. at 453. \[26\] Id. at 456 (quoting Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal. 2d 256, 391 P.2d 168, 37 Cal…

  15. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · January 29, 2021 · in the opinion

    Hayes v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2021)

    …our Supreme Court cautions against "instructions getting into evidentiary matters, subquestions which better practice suggests should be omitted from the instructions and left to the lawyers to flesh out in closing arguments." Ford Motor Co. v…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · February 28, 2014 · in the opinion

    Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (2014)

    …v. A-C Prods. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492-93 (6th Cir. 2005); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:08-cv-630, 2013 WL 214378, at [\1]-3 (D. Utah Jan. 18, 2014)…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · July 21, 2017 · in the opinion

    Haskins v. 3M Company (2017)

    …later afflicted with mesothelioma, contributed to the formation of the disease." Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 2013 WL 214378, at [\1] (D. Utah Jan. 18, 2013); see also Yates v. Ford Motor Co., 113 F. Supp…

  18. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · September 28, 2020 · in the opinion

    Gibbs v. 84 Lumber Company (2020)

    …238, 242 (4th Cir. 1971) (finding that the duty-to-warn arises when the user may not realize the potential danger of a product))); see Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 444, 699…

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion

    Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. (2016)

    …701.) Accordingly, we conclude excluding reference to the first jury's determination that Kaiser Gypsum was 3.5 percent at fault did not prejudice Kaiser Gypsum. White v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · December 21, 2021 · in the opinion

    United States Fidelity and Guaranty v. Ulbricht (2021)

    …F/V St. Patrick, 816 F.2d 1345, 1352 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Polk v. Ford Motor Co., 529 F.2d 259, 271 (8th Cir. 1976)), opinion modified on reh'g, 866 F.2d 318 (9th…