23 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 26, 2014
Scott v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
The court affirmed the judgment and compensatory damages for Patrick and Sharon Scott against Ford Motor Co. on the failure to warn claims, and reversed the ruling that barred punitive damages, remanding for a trial on…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 29, 2011
Adams v. Ford Motor Company (2011)
…so Ford Motor Company keeps its award of costs including $167,570 in expert witness fees after its defense verdict. A prevailing defendant's section 998 offer is presumed reasonable when it wins a more favorable…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 8, 2016
Lepore v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (2016)
The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Ford, Navistar and Kelsey-Hayes, finding triable issues on whether Lepore was exposed to asbestos from their products, and affirmed summary judgment for Gibbs International. A plaintiff in…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 14, 2003
Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the nonsuit for the friction-product defendants (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Mercedes-Benz USA, Volkswagen of America and Pneumo Abex), holding that Indiana's two-year statute of limitations barred the Cossmans' claims…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 16, 2010 · in the opinion
Teruel-Armstrong v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc. (2010)
…51 Cal.App.4th 1447; Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262; Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202; see also New Albertsons, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2013)
…Yukevich, Steven D. Smelser, Patricia Ball; Dykema Gossett, John M. Thomas, Tamara A. Bush, for Appellant Ford Motor Company. Herzfeld & Rubin, Craig L. Winterman, Tara-Jane Flynn; Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, Laurie J. Hepler, Nathaniel K. Fisher…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2014 · in the opinion
Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2014)
…landowner's premises. The claim against Ford Motor Company asserted in Campbell was based on Ford's passive involvement as owner of the plant in which an independent contractor was installing asbestos insulation. Plaintiff's claim…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2017 · in the opinion
Johnson v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2017)
…identified six specific trucks owned by Bekins during the years of Father's employment: two Ford Motor Company (Ford) bobtail trucks (1965 and 1969 models) and four medium-duty International Harvester Company (International) semitruck tractors (1965…
-
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)…
-
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…
-
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)…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 23, 2018 · in the opinion
Williams v. the Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack OF California (2018)
…which occurred "during the 1960's through the mid-1980's." \[17\] "A \shade tree mechanic' is someone who maintains and repairs his vehicles himself." (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475…