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

Search

14 results for “Ford Motor Company”

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 30, 2010

    Russell v. Ford Motor Company (2010)

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's liability and damages findings against Ford Motor Company, but vacated the judgment and remanded so Ford's counsel could review the settlement agreements before a new judgment was…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 5, 2017

    Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (2017)

    …of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Exxon Mobil, Ford and Rossmoor, rejecting plaintiffs' challenges to the summary adjudication for Exxon, the nonsuit for Rossmoor, the jury instructions on Ford, and the defense verdict for Exxon. An…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 25, 2021

    Putt v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2021)

    …a new trial on apportionment of fault among Ford, other automakers and brake pad makers/suppliers and on the amount of punitive damages. Where the jury found Ford's brake pads defective and a substantial factor…

  4. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 25, 2014 · in the opinion

    Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2014)

    Ford Motor Company During Trial Abex contends the judgment must be reversed "based on the \[trial\] court's prejudicial decision to apply Campbell mid-trial." Abex characterizes "the publication of Campbell" as "\[a\]n unexpected event…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 24, 2008 · in the opinion

    Cunningham v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008)

    …provide the replacements for such parts, they cannot be held liable for Cunningham's injuries. (See, e.g., Vandermark v. Ford Motor Company, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 262; Wiler v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 29, 2024 · in the opinion

    Watts v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2024)

    …in brakes sold to end users. Various entities, including Bendix, Ford, and General Motors, purchased asbestos-containing friction material from Abex, [\256] but its most significant business came from Rayloc, which manufactured brake products that were…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 28, 2017 · in the opinion

    Sandoval v. American Appliance Manufacturing Corp. (2017)

    …adjudication on the Sandovals' claims. AAMC requested summary judgment on two grounds. Relying on the holding in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 34 (Campbell), which our Supreme Court recently disapproved…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2019 · in the opinion

    Mettias v. The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California (Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2019)

    …evidence." (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 543 \[138 Cal.Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857\], italics omitted, overruled on different grounds in Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2021 · in the opinion

    Phipps v. Copeland Corporation LLC (2021)

    …(Cf. Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 525, 553 \[jury's award of 13 times the amount counsel for plaintiffs requested in noneconomic damages and three times the amount requested for…