84 results for “General Electric”, page 3 of 5
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · March 11, 1999 · in the opinion
North American Refractory Co. v. Easter (1999)
…909] Under Alabama law, proof of proximate causation is an essential element for both products liability and negligence claims. See Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 707 So.2d 198, 202 (Ala.1997) (products liability); Rutley v…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · October 21, 2021 · in the opinion
Spurlin v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)
…detailed in his report that General Specifications for Machinery "required manufacturers to provide installation, operation and maintenance instructions as well as \safety precautions' as an essential part of Instruction Books for machinery and electrical equipment." (Doc…
-
Court case · Maine Supreme Judicial Court · October 15, 1986 · in the opinion
Bernier v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986)
…is an important limitation of the seller's liability. In general, "\[t\]he rule of strict liability subjects the seller to liability to [\540] the user or consumer even though he has exercised all possible care…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 31, 2000 · in the opinion
Caruolo v. John Crane, Inc. (2000)
…69-70, 286 N.E.2d 454 (1972). See Barkanic v. General Admin. of Civil Aviation of the People's Republic of China, 923 F.2d 957, 963 (2d Cir.1991) (stating that New York courts…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · January 17, 2019 · in the opinion
Knudsen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…Mass toxic tort cases, including asbestos cases, may be consolidated if they meet the requirements of the general rule governing consolidation of cases (In re Asbestos Litigation, 173 F.R.D.81, 38 Fed.R.Serv…
-
Court case · South Carolina Supreme Court · April 30, 2007
Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2007)
James Henderson, a North Carolina resident, and his wife sued several manufacturers in South Carolina. They claimed he developed mesothelioma from asbestos-containing products he encountered working for many years as a boilermaker, pipefitter and…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 28, 2011
Webster v. Exxonmobil Oil Corp. (2011)
…defeat a nonsuit; without evidence of exposure there is no causation. Causation; Product Identification; Expert Testimony; Premises Owner Liability; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Mobil Torrance refinery (General Petroleum); Mobil refinery, Torrance, Torrance; U.S. Navy…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island · March 16, 2017
Stevens v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)
…asbestos materials. Genuine factual disputes also barred summary judgment on the sophisticated user and government contractor defenses, and general maritime law does not bar loss of consortium damages. Failure to Warn; The Bare-Metal Defense; Sophisticated…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · June 2, 1993
Jackson v. Anchor Packing Co. (1993)
…had worked at the plant for sixteen to twenty-three years between 1956 and 1979. Most were general tireworkers who did not handle the products. The complaint and the doctors' testimony said the workers had asbestosis…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2019
Serrano v. Superior Boiler Works (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…locations in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and other boroughs, New York helper to a general contractor apartment buildings in the South Bronx Bronx 1962-1965; Boiler Technician apartment buildings, residential homes and commercial locations in Manhattan, Brooklyn…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · March 16, 2020 · in the opinion
Clevenger v. John Crane, Inc. (2020)
Marchevsky's answered: So basically as we put in the guidelines, in general, it's difficult to tell a sarcoma mesothelioma from other tumors, which is why we went through the trouble of putting together the…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · May 4, 2006 · in the opinion
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2006)
Therefore, unlike the Texas Legislature, the New Jersey Legislature has the general power to enact retroactive civil statutes that do not impair contractual obligations or remedies. See Nobrega, 772 A.2d at 378-82; Phillips, 608…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · September 1, 2023
Cook v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (2023)
…maritime law applies, with state law only supplementing where maritime law is silent. General maritime law does not bar loss of consortium, punitive or survival damages against a manufacturer in such a case. Product Identification; The…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 19, 2017 · in the opinion
Evans v. CBS Corp. (2017)
…must "assess the general features of the type of incident involved," to determine whether the incident has "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce\[.\]" Second, a court must determine whether "the general character" of the "activity…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 19, 2019 · in the opinion
Evans v. Imo Industries, Inc. (2019)
…upon by Captain Moore extend to JCI because Captain Moore testified that "these documents are instructive for the general purpose of determining what the Navy's attitude towards warnings was at any particular point in time.…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 31, 1995 · in the opinion
Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995)
…914 F.2d 360, 372-373, 383.) Other cases dispense entirely with evidence of where a product was used by merely requiring proof that it was in general use at an industrial facility. Thus, Martin v…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · May 7, 2021 · in the opinion
Spurlin v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)
…be contrary to the command for uniformity between rules governing the same injury, whether under the Jones Act or under the general maritime law. See id. There being no evidence that punitive damages were traditionally awarded…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 17, 2015 · in the opinion
Amato v. Bell & Gossett (2015)
…of Pittsburgh, 409 Pa. 357, 186 A.2d 399 (1962), which it asserts stands for the general rule that "for the same injury, an injured party may have but one satisfaction." Id. at 402. However, Crane…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 9, 2009 · in the opinion
Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009)
…unable to conclude that the jury's verdict was based on a finding of negligent failure to warn because the special verdict form is inconsistent.\[5\] [\715] The jury was given general negligence instructions BAJI Nos…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · September 14, 2001 · in the opinion
Parks v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2001)
…disease and its cause constitutes a new injury and the basis for a separate cause of action. In general, product liability actions must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues or within…