57 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 3
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Utah · February 28, 2014
Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
Joseph Anderson Jr. sued in state court, and the case was removed to federal court in Utah. He alleged asbestos-caused mesothelioma and died of it in 2008. His wife Arva Anderson, as executor, took over as plaintiff. After the case returned from the…
-
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 · 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…
-
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…
-
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 · 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 · 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…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · May 2, 2016 · in the opinion
Whelan v. Armstrong Int'l (2016)
…Newark, argued the cause on May 2, 2016, and Sean M. Marotta argued the cause on May 16, 2018, for respondent Ford Motor Company (LeClair Ryan, attorneys; Robin Gnudi Kalocsay, Newark, and Michael D. Goldklang, on…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · May 16, 2018 · in the opinion
Whelan v. Armstrong International Inc. (2018)
…cause on May 2, 2016, and Sean M. Marotta argued the cause on May 16, 2018, for respondent Ford Motor Company (LeClair Ryan, attorneys; Robin Gnudi Kalocsay and Michael D. Goldklang, on the brief). Marc S…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 25, 2014 · in the opinion
Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2014)
Ford Motor Company During Trial Abex contends the judgment must be reversed "based on the \[trial\] court's prejudicial decision to apply Campbell mid-trial." Abex characterizes "the publication of Campbell" as "\[a\]n unexpected event…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · January 14, 1987 · in the opinion
Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (1987)
…defendants should be \jointly and severally' liable." (Plaintiff's Complaint at pp. 7-8). A case decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals subsequent to Abel is Cousineau v. Ford Motor Company, 140 Mich.App. 19…
-
Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · February 2, 1993 · in the opinion
Harashe v. Flintkote Co. (1993)
…Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, 368 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.1963) \[4,5\]. W.R. Grace has successor liability for the liabilities of Zonolite. See, id.; Ernst v. Ford Motor Company, 813 S.W…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · November 5, 1997 · in the opinion
Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)
…and a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner." Denny v. Ford Motor Company, 87 N.Y.2d 248…
-
Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · November 19, 2019 · in the opinion
Whelan v. Armstrong International Inc. (2019)
…mentioning. The product manufacturer (1) "has the knowledge and ability to warn of the dangers of the joint use of the products, especially if the other company's product is a \wear item,'" id. at 472…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · September 28, 2020 · in the opinion
Gibbs v. 84 Lumber Company (2020)
…238, 242 (4th Cir. 1971) (finding that the duty-to-warn arises when the user may not realize the potential danger of a product))); see Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 444, 699…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion
Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. (2016)
…701.) Accordingly, we conclude excluding reference to the first jury's determination that Kaiser Gypsum was 3.5 percent at fault did not prejudice Kaiser Gypsum. White v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · June 1, 1988 · in the opinion
H & H Plumbing Co. v. Indus. Comm'n (1988)
…(1976), 39 Ill. App.3d 59, 65-66, 349 N.E.2d 616, 621; see Pearson v. Ford Motor Co. (1975), 32 Ill. App.3d 188, 191, 336 N.E. 2d 528, 530.) In the case…
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · December 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings (2008)
…in Simonetta, common law product liability claims like those here\[4\] are governed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965),\[5\] adopted in Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash.2d 522, 531-32, 452…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · November 10, 2008 · in the opinion
Kimball v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2008)
…her\] product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. \[16\] See Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wn.2d 522, 532, 452…