9 results for “Ford Motor Company”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · August 10, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (2018)
(Ford MTE Castleman at 6.) However, the court notes that pursuant to Rule 703, an expert may disclose otherwise inadmissible underlying facts or data "if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · September 17, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2018)
…the brands of brakes he worked on at Dexter, Mr. Jack testified that "\[s\]ome of them \[were\] Ford." (Id. at 131:17-20.) When Plaintiffs' counsel asked Mr. Jack if he used the arc grinder …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 28, 2019 · in the opinion
Jack v. Dco, LLC (2019)
…those he encountered at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard." (Resp. DCo at 11; Resp. Ford at 12.) In particular, Plaintiffs emphasize that Mr. Jack testified in his deposition that, while he was working at the Shipyard…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 8, 2011 · in the opinion
Wangen v. AW Chesterton Company (2011)
…CHYRSLER CORPORATION; CONAIR CORPORATION; CRANE CO.; CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to MUNDET CORK COMPANY; DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY; DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER USA CORPORATION; GARDNER DENVER, INC…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · September 8, 2015 · in the opinion
Estenson v. Caterpillar Inc. (2015)
…CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in- interest to MUNDET CORK COMPANY); CUMMINS, INC.; DANA COMPANIES LLC (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to VICTOR GASKET MANUFACTURING COMPANY); FORD MOTOR COMPANY…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · April 3, 2017 · in the opinion
Woo v. General Electric Company (2017)
…9\]. . . . In addition, there are some cases where the combination of two sound products creates a dangerous condition, and both manufacturers have a duty to warn. \[Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App. 1, 34…
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · December 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings (2008)
…in Simonetta, common law product liability claims like those here\[4\] are governed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965),\[5\] adopted in Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash.2d 522, 531-32, 452…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · July 20, 2018 · in the opinion
Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018)
…b)(2); Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(c) motion challenges the sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings, and the court…
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · October 31, 1989 · in the opinion
Falk v. Keene Corp. (1989)
…is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user ..." This court adopted the strict liability theory of section 402A as to manufacturers in Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wn.2d 522…