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

Search

292 results for “General Electric”, page 9 of 15

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 17, 2000 · in the opinion

    Ashdown v. Ameron International Corp. (2000)

    …1982, the dual capacity exception to the general exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy has been limited to the narrow factual circumstances presented where the employee's injury was caused by the employer's product, which…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 13, 2012 · in the opinion

    Leonard v. John Crane, Inc. (2012)

    …12 Cal.3d 382. Applying general tort principles, the court reasoned that "one who negligently causes a severely disabling injury to an adult may reasonably expect that the injured person is married and that his or…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 23, 2022 · in the opinion

    Bader v. Johnson & Johnson (2022)

    …that has not gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific or medical community. Rather it was the theory of causation, that \[the pesticide\] caused plaintiff's autism, that has not gained general acceptance in the relevant…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · August 18, 2014 · in the opinion

    Grande v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc. (2014)

    …false representation; (4) intentional tort/intentional failure to warn; (5) premises/contractor liability; (6) general negligence; and (7) vicarious liability. (Id.) Plaintiff has since dismissed a number of Defendants from the above-captioned matter. Only Plaintiff…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · April 8, 2016 · in the opinion

    Flintkote Co. v. Aviva Plc (2016)

    …insurance policies." Dkt. 120 at 14. But as Aviva correctly points out, there is no such thing as a "national common law," a "federal general common law," or "prevailing law." See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 23, 2018 · in the opinion

    Williams v. the Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack OF California (2018)

    …As to the punitive damages claim, Pep Boys asserted that appellants' evidence failed to show that Pep Boys had anything more than a general knowledge of the hazards of asbestos, and did not rebut testimony by…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 3, 2016 · in the opinion

    Davis v. Honeywell International Inc. (2016)

    …to \determine whether, as a matter of logic, the studies and other information cited by experts adequately support the conclusion that the expert's general theory or technique is valid.'" (Sargon, supra, 55 Cal.4th at…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2020 · in the opinion

    Textron, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (2020)

    …both parties) to obtain a declaration that Travelers owed a duty to defend and indemnify in the Esters action under a series of Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies issued to Textron by Travelers from January 1…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 20, 2015 · in the opinion

    Hellam v. Crane Co. (2015)

    …to Central Supply, 0.5 percent to Bendix, 0 percent to Hellam and General Motors, and 2.5 percent to "All Others." The trial court entered the original judgment against Crane in December 2012. That judgment…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 5, 2017 · in the opinion

    Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (2017)

    …1103.) Even assuming Dr. Horn is correct as to the cause of mesothelioma in general, plaintiffs had the burden to prove that exposure to asbestos-containing materials at Rossmoor was a substantial factor in contributing to…

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

    Evans v. Certainteed Corp. (2012)

    …Trutanich, City Attorney, Richard M. Brown, General Counsel of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Lisa S. Berger, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Cross-Respondent Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. K…

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

    Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012)

    …1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1137-1138 \[74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510\] (Weeks).) We give only a general summary of the facts relating to liability and compensatory damages, because the details are not germane to…

  14. Court case · California Supreme Court · July 3, 1980 · in the opinion

    Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980)

    …App.2d 451, 458-460 \[70 Cal. Rptr. 710\].) In Ramey v. General Petroleum Corp. (1959) 173 Cal. App.2d 386, 402 \[343 P.2d 787\], it was held that an action for fraud could be…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Howard v. Owens Corning (1999)

    …emotional distress, intentional tort, conspiracy [\389] and loss of consortium; and sought general, special and punitive damages against no fewer than 215 named defendants and 300 unnamed does. Specifically, the complaint alleged that as a result…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 12, 1999 · in the opinion

    Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1999)

    …Mississippi. Their general theory of negligence is that Ingalls knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos and nevertheless exposed Robert to those dangers without providing any warning or protection. I. Exposure and causation…

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

    Izell v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)

    …which may be as little as three months." Though acknowledging a "general inference that Crocidolite \[asbestos\] is more liable to produce mesothelioma," the report cautioned that "\[e\]xoneration of \[Union Carbide's\] Chrysotile \[asbestos\] has not…

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

    Lopez v. the Hillshire Brands Company (2019)

    …430, the more general instruction on substantial-factor causation: "A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a…

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2014 · in the opinion

    Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2014)

    …the same as under a claim of premises liability. The norm in considering negligence claims is the general duty to use reasonable care to avoid injuring others. When considering the scope of an employer's obligations…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 15, 2018 · in the opinion

    Polar-Mohr Maschinenvertriebsgesellschaft Gmbh, Co. KG v. Zurich American Insurance Company (2018)

    …concluded. . . that pro rata coverage would be more fair and equitable when compared to all sums allocation, we are constrained by the language of the applicable policies"); see also Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indem. Co.…