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

Search

147 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 8

  1. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · June 10, 2008

    Ford Motor Company v. Miller (2008)

    The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the $10,000,000 jury verdict and rendered judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding Ford owed no duty to Carolyn Miller and that John Roland had no compensable injury or…

  2. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · May 12, 2017

    Stockton v. Ford Motor Company (2017)

    The Court of Appeals vacated the $3.4 million judgment for Joyce and Ronnie Stockton against Ford Motor Company and remanded, because the jury instructions and verdict form omitted required questions on whether the product was…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 25, 2013

    Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2013)

    …the intermediate appellate court, reinstated the jury verdicts for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company, and reversed the trial court's judgment for Ford on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, which won back the…

  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 · 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · March 24, 2022

    Marino v. Abex Corporation (2022)

    The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Deborah Marino against Ford Motor Company, upholding the discovery sanctions; it found one hearsay ruling erroneous but harmless. A trial court may sanction a party for violating a…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana · March 27, 2014

    Hayes v. Asbestos, Corp., Ltd. (2014)

    …Ford Motor Company's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding that the Louisiana Products Liability Act was the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy against Ford and dismissing the non-LPLA claims and the punitive damages claim against Ford…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 27, 2014

    Smith v. Bmw OF North America LLC (2014)

    …affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Ford Motor Company and Borg-Warner Corporation, against the estate of Paul Rowland, represented by Amy Smith as executrix. A company is liable as an apparent manufacturer under…

  15. 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…

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. 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 …

  19. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · September 23, 2004

    In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2004)

    The court of appeals conditionally granted Sears and Ford's mandamus petitions, ordering the trial court to vacate its discovery orders because the requests for workers' compensation files, board minutes and violation records were overly broad…

  20. 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…