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

Search

182 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 10

  1. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · March 14, 2014

    Durham v. Ford Motor Company (2014)

    …judgment and partial summary judgment for Ford Motor Company on both the plaintiff's appeal and Ford's cross-appeal, rejecting the Durham estate's premises and products claims and Ford's request for total immunity…

  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…

  3. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 29, 2012

    Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2012)

    The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgments for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court should not have admitted the plaintiffs' expert's causation opinion…

  4. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · October 7, 2011

    Rehm v. Ford Motor Company (2011)

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Ford Motor Company against the Rehm family, and held Ford's cross-appeal moot while addressing its merits. Evidence rulings are reviewed for abuse of…

  5. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 15, 2020

    Coates v. Ford Motor Company (2020)

    The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Ford Motor Company after retrial, rejecting the Coates estate's challenges to the denial of partial summary judgment, the denial of a new trial, and the refusal…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · January 31, 2019

    Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2019)

    The Delaware Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, its alternative motion for a new trial, and its motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 8, 1998

    Ford Motor v. Wood (1998)

    …of Special Appeals reversed the judgment for Mrs. Wood against Ford Motor Company for insufficient proof that her husband was exposed to Ford's brake and clutch products, and affirmed the judgment for the Grewe plaintiffs…

  11. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 2013

    Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (2013)

    The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the jury verdict and judgment for the estate against Ford and Honeywell (Bendix) because of the "substantial contributing factor" jury instructions, and remanded for further proceedings under a multiple-sufficient…

  12. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · August 28, 2024

    Day v. 3M Company Inc. (2024)

    …Island Superior Court denied summary judgment to Ford Motor Company and to Graybar Electric Company, so the estate's claims against both go forward, and it also denied Ford's motion for partial entry of separate…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 8, 2010

    Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (2010)

    Robert Reaser served in the Navy from 1951 to 1971, working as a pipefitter and welder on Navy vessels, including time in San Diego and Long Beach. He later lived in Florida and worked in construction and on automobiles. He was diagnosed with…

  14. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · March 29, 2010

    Asbury v. AW Chesterton Company (2010)

    Carlie Asbury, diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006, and her husband Thomas sued thirty defendants in Rhode Island Superior Court in 2007. They alleged she was exposed to asbestos in Iowa, Colorado and Wyoming. In Iowa she swept dust and debris in…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · February 21, 2017

    Fish v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)

    The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion for a protective order limiting the plaintiffs' 54 Rule 30(b)(6) areas of inquiry, largely for Ford, allowed the plaintiffs…

  16. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · August 20, 2015

    Oddo v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2015)

    …affirmed Ford's liability, reallocated fault to Ford 65%, Union Carbide 25% and Higgins 10%, and amended the survival damages award against Ford, so the plaintiffs lost against Southern Talc but kept their judgment against Ford…

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2006

    Berger v. Amchem Prods. (2006)

    The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger…

  19. 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…

  20. 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 …