136 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 7
-
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 · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 19, 2014
Rost v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
The Superior Court affirmed the judgment for Richard and Joyce Rost against Ford Motor Company, rejecting Ford's appeal and the Rosts' cross-appeal. Betz v. Pneumo Abex does not bar all 'any exposure' expert opinion…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · November 22, 2016
Rost v. Ford Motor Co. (2016)
…affirmed the judgment for the Rost estates against Ford Motor Company, holding that the causation testimony was proper and that, although consolidation with two other cases was error, Ford showed no prejudice. An expert may tell…
-
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…
-
Court case · New York Court of Appeals · November 27, 2018
Juni v. Ford Motor Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…verdict against Ford Motor Company, so plaintiff Mary Juni lost and Ford won judgment as a matter of law. Viewing the evidence in plaintiff's favor, it was legally insufficient to establish that Ford's conduct…
-
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…
-
Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 10, 2022 · in the opinion
Sinyard v. Georgia Power Company (2022)
…to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sinyard was aware of the specific health hazards posed by working with asbestos and the presence and location of asbestos in Ford's Hapeville plant…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · February 28, 2017
Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (2017)
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Ford Motor Company, upholding the trial court's order setting aside the jury's verdict for plaintiff Mary Juni, and dismissed the appeal from the order as subsumed in…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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 · 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…
-
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 · 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 · Kentucky Supreme Court · August 23, 2007 · in the opinion
General Elec. Co. v. Cain (2007)
…judgment as a matter of law. Ford Motor Company Ford Motor Company designed, manufactured, and sold motor vehicles during the period from 1975 to 1982. Rehm worked at two Ford plants in Louisville while employed by…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 26, 2022 · in the opinion
Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022)
…exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles, plaintiffs' claims stand. Accordingly, Ford's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. v. Navistar, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Navistar, Inc. (f/k/a International Harvester Company) contends that…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · April 15, 2013
Bobo v. Agco Corporation (2013)
Barbara Bobo sued nine defendants, claiming she developed malignant mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. Seven were dismissed by stipulation, leaving MetLife and the Tennessee Valley Authority. She alleged that she was exposed through contact with…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 1, 2022
Labarre v. Bienville Auto Parts Inc. (2022)
…It denied the motion on negligence, because Bienville's two witnesses conflicted on whether the company knew the brakes contained asbestos and that asbestos was dangerous. It also denied the motion on the sophisticated-user defense…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 5, 2019 · in the opinion
Schindler v. Dravo Basic Materials Company (2019)
…additional asbestos fiber could constitute a specific cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma.\[51\] Plaintiff contends that Dr. Harrison has employed the same methodology as the expert in Michel v. Ford Motor Company. See No. 18-4738…