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

Search

40 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · March 22, 2019

    Ford Motor Company v. Sheets (2019)

    …trial court's one-sentence order denying Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion and remanded for the trial court to state the basis for its ruling, leaving Ford's up-the-ladder immunity claim undecided…

  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 · 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;…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · July 22, 2019

    Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (2019)

    The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Ford and Goodyear and the denial of the Richards' request to supplement their expert report or for reargument. Under Ohio law, Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.96…

  7. 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 …

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · February 25, 2005

    Rehm v. Navistar International (2005)

    …the appellees (including Allied Chemical, DuPont, Ford, GE, Kentucky Utilities Ghent Powerhouse, LG&E Cane Run and Mill Creek), Louisville millwright Facilities owned by the appellees (including Allied Chemical, DuPont, Ford, GE, Kentucky Utilities Ghent Powerhouse…

  11. Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 8, 2012

    Adler v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2012)

    Twenty-two plaintiffs, all represented by the same lawyers, sued more than eighty defendants in New York County for asbestos-related injuries or deaths. Seven had lung cancer, fourteen had pleural mesothelioma, and Glenda Vega had peritoneal…

  12. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion

    Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)

    …J., dissenting). In some cases, it has proven difficult to apply. See, e.g., Stockton v. Ford Motor Company, No. W2016-01175-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2021760, at [\12]-15 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed May…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 24, 2008 · in the opinion

    Cunningham v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008)

    …provide the replacements for such parts, they cannot be held liable for Cunningham's injuries. (See, e.g., Vandermark v. Ford Motor Company, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 262; Wiler v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co…

  14. Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 20, 2017

    Altman v. Ford Motor Co. (In re New York City Asbetos Litigation, 2017)

    …Benicia Pump Repair Benicia 1950s-1980s; helper in boiler and furnace removal and installation stepfather's boiler and furnace business 1950s; worker at a construction products company 1970s; handyman 1970s and 1980s; union carpenter various construction…

  15. 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…

  16. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 19, 2020 · in the opinion

    Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (2020)

    …We agree with the Coogans. a. Legal Principles In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., the Supreme Court adopted the rule of strict liability for product manufacturers stated in § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Am…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)

    …2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478-479 \[110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 28 P.3d 116\], quoting Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 261 \[37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168…

  18. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 3, 2008 · in the opinion

    Benard v. Eagle, Inc. (2008)

    …the general speedy manner in which this Court handles applications for rehearing when this Court is notified of the urgency of the need for prompt action. In Centanni v. Ford Motor Co., 93-1133 (La.App…

  19. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 21, 1985 · in the opinion

    Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …Inc., 656 F.2d 1147, 1153 (5th Cir.1981); King v. Ford Motor Co., 597 F.2d 436, 445 (5th Cir.1979). We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court. Nothing…

  20. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · November 1, 2018 · in the opinion

    Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (2018)

    …Falk v. Keene Corp., 113 Wash.2d 645, 649, 782 P.2d 974 (1989) (quoting Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Wash.2d 208, 212, 683 P.2d 1097 (1984)). 1222 ¶ 56 In contrast, the apparent…