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

Search

88 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 2 of 5

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 27, 2022

    Beierschmitt v. Grobet File Company OF America, LLC (2022)

    …agreed. The Court of Appeal reversed. Relying on the later U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ford Motor Co., it held no strict causal link is needed. Grobet's national catalog listed asbestos soldering blocks, it…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 2, 2017 · in the opinion

    Beckering v. Shell Oil Company (2017)

    …she laundered. In our prior decision in this matter (Beckering v. Shell Oil Company (Nov. 21, 2014, B256407) \[nonpub. opn.\] (Beckering I)), guided by Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell)…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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)…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)

    …2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478-479 \[110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 28 P.3d 116\], quoting Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 261 \[37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 27, 2021 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021)

    …mind. Morgan's argument relies on and quotes from Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1115 \[122 Cal.Rptr.2d 139\] (Romo), vacated on other grounds in Ford Motor Co. v. Romo…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 10, 1985 · in the opinion

    Kaminski v. Western MacArthur Co. (1985)

    …v. IRM Corporation (1985) 38 Cal.3d 454 \[213 Cal. Rptr. 213, 698 P.2d 116\]; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256 \[37 Cal. Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168\]; Barth v…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 8, 2018 · in the opinion

    Alfaro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2018)

    …the determination of whether these fees were reasonably necessary, are issues left to the discretion of the trial court." (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1484 \[132 Cal.Rptr.3d 424…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 6, 2020 · in the opinion

    Barr v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (2020)

    …where the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences.'" (Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1115…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 13, 1996 · in the opinion

    Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996)

    …in light of the evidence before it. (Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 604, 610 \[41 Cal. Rptr.2d 342\] (Ford).) Therefore, OC bore the burden of proving…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 17, 2009 · in the opinion

    Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)

    …which makes them better able to insure that the component is suitable for their specific applications. (Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1554 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 190\].) Liability of a…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)

    …which makes them better able to insure that the component is suitable for their specific applications. (Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1554 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 190\].) Liability of a…

  17. Court case · California Supreme Court · December 1, 2016 · in the opinion

    Kesner v. Superior Court and Haver (2016)

    …materials. Neither the Havers' nor Kesner's suit reached a jury. Abex moved for nonsuit at the beginning of trial in light of Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 34 (Campbell)…

  18. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 24, 2021 · in the opinion

    Sabetian v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (2021)

    …it is an appropriate one for the forum to apply to the case before it"'"\].) We review the choice of law question de novo. (Scott v. Ford Motor Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1503…

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 26, 2012 · in the opinion

    Bankhead v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012)

    …87 Cal.App.4th 953, 980.) The case law makes clear that "\[t\]o accomplish this purpose, the award must be assessed against the party actually responsible for the wrong." (Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 22, 2014 · in the opinion

    Izell v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)

    …Cal.App.4th 655, 690-691 \[71 Cal.Rptr.3d 775\].) As our Supreme Court stated in Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191 \[29 Cal.Rptr.3d 401, 113 P.3d 82…