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

Search

24 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

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

    Lopez v. the Hillshire Brands Company (2019)

    …harm. It cites the rule that "\\[m\]ere presence at a site where asbestos was present is insufficient to establish legally significant asbestos exposure.'" (Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 288…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 8, 2018 · in the opinion

    Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Company (2018)

    …transmission." (Id. at p. 1140; followed by Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 275-276.) The court limited the duty to "members of a worker's household, i.e., persons who…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion

    Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. (2016)

    …701.) Accordingly, we conclude excluding reference to the first jury's determination that Kaiser Gypsum was 3.5 percent at fault did not prejudice Kaiser Gypsum. White v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)

    …2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478-479 \[110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 28 P.3d 116\], quoting Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 261 \[37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 25, 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…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  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 · 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…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 18, 2009 · in the opinion

    O'neil v. Crane Co. (2009)

    …or raw material and therefore are in a better position to guarantee that the component or raw material is suitable for their particular applications." \[Citations.\]' (Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. \[(1998)\] 60 Cal.App.4th 1541…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · July 21, 2014 · in the opinion

    Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (2014)

    Ford Motor Co., 99 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1141, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 (2002) ("It is difficult to imagine how corporate malice could be shown in the case of a large corporation except by piecing…

  18. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 9, 2009 · in the opinion

    Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009)

    …instructions." (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 540 \[138 Cal.Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857\] (Hasson), overruled in part on other grounds in Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 21, 2021 · in the opinion

    Benavidez v. Fluor Corp. (2021)

    …2) \legal cause.'" (Turley, at p. 979.) "\\[I\]f 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 Carbide Corp…