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

Search

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

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 15, 2007

    Honer v. Ford Motor Company (2007)

    The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments for Ford Motor Company and Merck & Co. and remanded with directions to deny both motions, so plaintiff Eileen Honer prevailed on appeal. Under Code of Civil Procedure section…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2012

    Campbell v. Ford Motor Company (2012)

    The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiff Honer (continued by her daughter Mary Campbell) against Ford, holding Ford owed her no duty, so Ford prevailed. Under the Rowland factors as clarified in Cabral, an…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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)…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 10, 1985 · in the opinion

    Kaminski v. Western MacArthur Co. (1985)

    …v. IRM Corporation (1985) 38 Cal.3d 454 \[213 Cal. Rptr. 213, 698 P.2d 116\]; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256 \[37 Cal. Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168\]; Barth v…

  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 · 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)…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 24, 2021 · in the opinion

    Sabetian v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (2021)

    …it is an appropriate one for the forum to apply to the case before it"'"\].) We review the choice of law question de novo. (Scott v. Ford Motor Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1503…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · California Supreme Court · February 18, 2010 · in the opinion

    McCann v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2010)

    …of Brennan, J.); see also Turcott v. Ford Motor Co. (1st Cir. 1974) 494 F.2d 173, 173-174.) \[14\] Because we conclude that under California's choice-of-law principles the law of Oklahoma should…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1998 · in the opinion

    Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (1998)

    …in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to that end; the retailer's strict liability thus serves as an added incentive to safety." (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2016 · in the opinion

    Moran v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (2016)

    …and certain court of appeal decisions rendered in its wake: Chavez, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, Scott v. Ford Motor Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492 (Scott), Collin, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 582…

  18. 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…

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 30, 2004 · in the opinion

    Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2004)

    …776, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 322.) Because Owens-Illinois was not "an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise" of OCF's Kaylo (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262…

  20. 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…