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

Search

257 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 13

  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 · 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…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · October 28, 2022

    Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)

    …of the estate of Robie W. Walls, brought a wrongful death action in federal court in North Carolina against Ford Motor Company and other defendants. The opinion refers to Mr. Walls's Navy service on the…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · February 3, 2011

    Welsh v. Ford Motor Co. (2011)

    …new trial, so the widow Sylvia Welsh won and Ford Motor Company lost. A workers' compensation claimant must show by a preponderance that the disease was contracted through injurious exposure in the course of employment. Coworker…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 5, 2005

    Snyder v. Ford Motor Co. (2005)

    …Workers' Compensation; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Clingerman facility; Ford Motor Company Lima plant; General Dynamics Lima facility; General Dynamics facility, Lima; Clingerman facility, Bellefontaine; Ford Motor Company, Lima employee General Dynamics facility Lima 1984-1993;…

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 25, 2019

    Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)

    The magistrate judge recommended granting Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion on the negligence, failure-to-warn and punitive damages claims, because Johansen's brake exposure was de minimis and Ford owed no duty to…

  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 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · March 19, 2018

    Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2018)

    …Nevada Bell and AT & T, Inc., found jurisdiction over Ford and AT & T Corp., but dismissed the claims against those two without prejudice as conclusory, allowing plaintiffs to amend. A foreign corporation registered in Pennsylvania consents…

  14. 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…

  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 · 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 …

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 20, 2019

    Temperino v. Amchem Prods. (2019)

    …without prejudice to renewal at trial; Ford's motion was marked withdrawn. Conflicting expert reports on whether exposure caused lung cancer raise credibility issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. The court deferred ruling on…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 31, 2017 · in the opinion

    Charlevoix v. Caterpillar (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)

    Charlevoix performed clutch and gasket work on Ford vehicles owned by family and friends. (D.I. 216, Ex. 3 at 152:16-19) However, Mr. Milligan could not recall the manufacturer of any clutches or gaskets…