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

Search

14 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1998 · in the opinion

    Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (1998)

    …reach the consumer in the same condition as it left the manufacturer\]; and Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817 \[silcone supplier not liable to user of…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 15, 2015 · in the opinion

    Soto v. BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc. (2015)

    …pain and suffering of the decedent, which is not recoverable as a general rule." The court nonetheless permitted Gabriel to testify about "\[h\]elping out Grandpa towards the end," including giving him morphine, changing his diapers…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 2, 2001 · in the opinion

    Franklin v. Usx Corp. (2001)

    …extent these arose prior to the closing. In addition, we note that the bill of sale contained specific and clear provisions relating to the buyer's general non-assumption of liability. It stated that "\[t\]he…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · California Supreme Court · May 15, 2000

    Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000)

    …Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Mitchell's second action (for mesothelioma) was not time-barred and that Asbestos Corporation made a general appearance in the first action, so the plaintiffs prevailed on both…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 12, 1999 · in the opinion

    Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1999)

    …Mississippi. Their general theory of negligence is that Ingalls knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos and nevertheless exposed Robert to those dangers without providing any warning or protection. I. Exposure and causation…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 28, 2008 · in the opinion

    Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2008)

    …sufficient contact with the state for the court to assume either general or limited jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting among other things that ACL had consented to jurisdiction by making a general appearance…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 30, 2024 · in the opinion

    Brooks v. Mission Stucco Company (2024)

    …4th 413, 424 (Wysinger).) However, "\[w\]ith a special verdict, unlike a general verdict or a general verdict with special findings, a reviewing court will not infer findings to support the verdict." (Singh, at p. 358…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 16, 2014 · in the opinion

    Hellam v. Crane Co. (2014)

    …General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 566.) This test "is not necessarily foreclosed simply because the product at issue is only in specialized use, so that the general public may not be familiar…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2020 · in the opinion

    Kramer v. Amcord Inc. (2020)

    …testified that gem and diamond cutter was an alternative title under the general "stonecutter" category and, further, that a vocational rehabilitation expert had confirmed that the general "stonecutter" category was in fact the correct one for…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 26, 2019 · in the opinion

    Harris v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. (2019)

    …room or in boilers may have contained asbestos, and even accepting that it was Triple A's general practice to remove such materials in ways generating respirable dust and fibers, Plaintiffs' discovery responses are devoid of…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 2002 · in the opinion

    McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002)

    …summary judgment was reversed on appeal. In Scheiding, a general contractor defendant supported its summary judgment motion with a declaration from counsel stating that the plaintiff did not mention the defendant in discovery. (Id. at p…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 1, 2014 · in the opinion

    Collin v. Calportland Company (2014)

    …Corp. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1231 (Casey).) In Casey, the plaintiff accused the defendant, a general contractor, of exposing him to asbestos at jobsites where the plaintiff worked for a subcontractor. (Id. at p…