62 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 4
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 31, 2023
Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2023)
The federal district court denied summary judgment motions by General Electric, ViacomCBS, Air & Liquid Systems and Warren Pumps, and granted the Elorreaga family's motion for partial summary judgment that the government contractor defense does not…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · September 15, 2021
Shelton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)
Frank Shelton, Jr. and Jennifer Schuyler sued dozens of companies, alleging that Shelton developed malignant mesothelioma from asbestos exposure during Navy service from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s. He worked as a Machinist Mate aboard the USS…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · February 25, 2019
Harris v. CBS Corporation (2019)
Michael Roy Harris and his wife Elsie sued CBS Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand (IR) and other companies in California state court in Alameda County. They brought personal injury and loss of consortium claims. Michael Harris has malignant mesothelioma,…
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · January 12, 2012 · in the opinion
O'neil v. Crane Co. (2012)
…981 P.2d 978\]; cf. Artiglio v. General Electric Co., supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 838-839 \[foreseeability of harm from a finished product is not sufficient to impose a duty to warn on…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 29, 2013 · in the opinion
Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013)
…which specifies when a supplier of goods is subject to liability for providing dangerous items lacking suitable warnings to users either "\directly or through a third person.'"\[2\] (Mack v. General Electric Co. (E.D.Pa…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 18, 2009 · in the opinion
O'neil v. Crane Co. (2009)
…General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817\] (Artiglio), on which the trial court here based its ruling, is no different. In that case, General Electric (GE) supplied bulk silicone…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 17, 2009 · in the opinion
Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)
…retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · April 29, 2019 · in the opinion
Toy v. Honeywell International Inc. (2019)
…by Daniel James Kelly, Tucker Ellis LLP & Nicole Elisabet Gage, Tucker Ellis LLP. Fryer-Knowles Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Stewart Bishop, Sinunu Bruni LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S. Johnson, WFBM, LLP…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 25, 2009 · in the opinion
Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)
…retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion
Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)
…specifications does not deprive them of the component parts defense. In Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817\], the defendant manufactured silicone in accordance with "particular specifications…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · May 16, 2019 · in the opinion
Toy v. Viking Pump (In re Toy Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…by Daniel James Kelly, Tucker Ellis LLP & Nicole Elisabet Gage, Tucker Ellis LLP. Fryer-Knowles Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Stewart Bishop, Sinunu Bruni LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S. Johnson, WFBM, LLP…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 22, 2017 · in the opinion
Turley v. Familian Corporation (2017)
…Webb's evidence of exposure was sufficient. This is the language: "Special Electric contends the evidence was insufficient to show Webb was exposed to crocidolite asbestos it had supplied. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 28, 2017 · in the opinion
Sandoval v. American Appliance Manufacturing Corp. (2017)
…reflect a common source, as they rely on duties subject to the Rowland test under Civil Code section 1714, which "establishes a general duty to exercise ordinary care in one's activities." (Kesner, supra, at pp…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 8, 2018 · in the opinion
Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Company (2018)
…secondary exposure, MDD challenged the evidence that Father worked for MDD at the shipyard as an electrician on ship conversion that had been introduced through decedent's deposition and Garcia's declaration as inadmissible hearsay, as…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 21, 2021 · in the opinion
Benavidez v. Fluor Corp. (2021)
…fact. Benavidez testified at his March 2018 deposition that during his first job at the Anheuser-Busch facility, Fluor employed electricians working at the site. Benavidez said he had "no idea" who employed the pipefitters. He…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2000 · in the opinion
Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2000)
…1141, 1145.) In 1978, the Supreme Court itself noted the seeming superiority of a term such as "\equitable apportionment or allocation of loss.'" (Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 736, 144 Cal…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 29, 2007 · in the opinion
Bakkie v. Union Carbide Corporation (2007)
…The court explained that the employer was a "sophisticated organization" and it did not have to be "told that gasoline is volatile and that sparks from an electrical connection or friction can cause ignition." (Ibid.) Subsequently…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Norris v. Crane Company (2008)
…the procedural matters. Therefore, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\[2\] General Knowledge of Asbestos Hazards By 1930, it was well established in the medical and scientific communities that breathing asbestos fibers caused asbestosis, a scarring…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · June 24, 2024 · in the opinion
Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)
…causation standard, and then arguing that the second "substantial factor" prong is not met). Only in its reply does Eaton raise doubts about Plaintiff's actual bystander exposure to its asbestos-containing electrical products. Dkt. No…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 17, 2017 · in the opinion
Phillips v. Honeywell International Inc. (2017)
…that is the most deadly of the three. It also described the general agreement that the diseases are positively correlated to the intensity and duration of exposure to asbestos dust, but noted "there is no conclusive…