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 3 of 5

  1. Court case · California Supreme Court · January 12, 2012 · in the opinion

    O'neil v. Crane Co. (2012)

    …plaintiffs' assertion on appeal, the case had not been tried or submitted to the jury on the theory that Ford had a duty to warn about hazards in replacement brakes and clutches. (Ford Motor v. Wood…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 21, 2014 · in the opinion

    Izell v. Union Carbide Corporation (2014)

    …(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 690-691.) As our Supreme Court stated in Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, "\[t\]o consider the defendant's entire course of conduct in setting…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 24, 2012 · in the opinion

    Evans v. Certainteed Corp. (2012)

    …e.g. Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 33.) A jury returned a verdict in favor of a plaintiff homemaker who suffered personal injuries caused by her exposure to asbestos dust…

  4. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 17, 2017 · in the opinion

    Phillips v. Honeywell International Inc. (2017)

    …s determination of undue prejudice is subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 147.) When weighing probative value against the danger of prejudice…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 19, 2020 · in the opinion

    Mata v. Liberty Utilities (park Water) Corp. (2020)

    …Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 402, a former Ford engineer and manager testified that Ford knew of the problem with the brakes on its Continental models because Ford had received customer and dealer…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 27, 2009 · in the opinion

    Mahoney v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2009)

    …supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 795-796; Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 798-799.) Generally, it is improper for counsel to argue facts outside the evidence, or to engage…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 24, 2020 · in the opinion

    Collantes v. Elementis Chemicals, Inc. (2020)

    …Familian Corp. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 969, 979 (Turley).) "\If there has been no exposure, there is no causation.'" (Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 289; see Izell v. Union…

  10. Court case · California Supreme Court · February 18, 2010 · in the opinion

    McCann v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2010)

    …of Brennan, J.); see also Turcott v. Ford Motor Co. (1st Cir. 1974) 494 F.2d 173, 173-174.) \[14\] Because we conclude that under California's choice-of-law principles the law of Oklahoma should…

  11. State law · California

    California Mesothelioma Lawyer: Asbestos Claims, Deadlines & Compensation

    …56 Cal. App. 4th 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) — No Proposition 51 apportionment within one product's chain of distribution. Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1541 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) — Same-product…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 29, 2020 · in the opinion

    Bader v. Avon Products, Inc. (2020)

    …Supreme Court may soon shed light on this issue in Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. (Minn. 2019) 931 N.W.2d 744, Supreme Court Minutes, January 17, 2020, certiorari granted sub nom. Ford Motor Co. v…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 16, 2015 · in the opinion

    Leidig v. Zenith Electronics LLC (2015)

    …1196; see also Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 788-789.) The court also sustained relevance objections to the supplemental evidence of specifications calling for asbestos strips in two Zenith radio…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · August 1, 2014 · in the opinion

    Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (2014)

    …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) ("It is difficult to imagine how corporate malice could…

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

    Izell v. Union Carbide Corporation (2014)

    …(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 690-691.) As our Supreme Court stated in Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, "\[t\]o consider the defendant's entire course of conduct in setting…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 6, 2013 · in the opinion

    Klinger v. Alderete (2013)

    …Klinger, Donadio learned that Alderete was suffering from lung cancer and not mesothelioma. Donadio also stated that the decision in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell), issued on May 21…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1998 · in the opinion

    Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (1998)

    …in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to that end; the retailer's strict liability thus serves as an added incentive to safety." (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262…

  18. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 2019 · in the opinion

    Rickert v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2019)

    …as set forth in Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604 (Ford.) But as NFL explained, Ford's "seriously inconvenient" standard applies — if at all — only when the…

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 29, 2020 · in the opinion

    Estes v. Eaton Corporation (2020)

    …authority cited by Estes, where the trial court specifically mentioned and rejected plaintiff's expert testimony as "\completely lacking in probative force.' "(See Meiner v. Ford Motor Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 127, 134-135.…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 3, 1998 · in the opinion

    Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (1998)

    …59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897, and Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168.) Viad reasons, "Because we find…