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

Search

82 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 5

  1. 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…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · August 1, 2016 · in the opinion

    Lund v. 3M Company (2016)

    …district court case, Defendants argued that a Navy ship should not be considered a "product" for purposes of a strict liability claim. (Id. (citing Mack v. General Electric Co., 896 F. Supp. 2d 333, 345 (E…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021

    Pizarro v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (2021)

    Renato Pizarro and his wife sued NASSCO, Pep Boys and other companies, alleging his mesothelioma came from asbestos exposure. The opinion describes two sources. One was the Navy overhaul of the USS Bristol County, where plaintiffs say NASSCO removed…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · April 5, 2024 · in the opinion

    Speck v. CBS Corporation (2024)

    …Speck was to any work done on or around a General Electric product or product of another defendant\[,\]" and has "no idea" about the quantity of asbestos fibers to which Speck may have been exposed by…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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.

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2018 · in the opinion

    Wittman v. Coty, Inc. (2018)

    …747, 771, italics omitted.) Where this showing is lacking, "\there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.'" (Ibid., quoting General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997) 522 U.S. 136…

  10. 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.

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · California Supreme Court · August 18, 1997 · in the opinion

    Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1997)

    …of "Kaylo" asbestos insulation to OCF in 1958, has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of defendant OCF. General Electric Company, joined by various defendants in the Lockheed Litigation Cases, Los Angeles Coordination Proceedings No…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 23, 1994 · in the opinion

    Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (1994)

    …The specifications provide that the contractor is to comply with all safety regulations and eliminate hazards to its own and other workers and that all work is subject to general supervision and inspection by PG&E…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 22, 2010

    Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Company (2010)

    …and Discovery Worksites: Contra Costa Powerhouse; Moss Landing Powerhouse; Contra Costa Powerhouse, Antioch; Moss Landing Powerhouse, Moss Landing electrician Contra Costa Powerhouse Antioch 1961-1966 and 1969-1985; electrician Moss Landing Powerhouse Moss Landing 1985-1993

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 11, 1995 · in the opinion

    Morton v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1995)

    …may be admissible to prove what ordinary consumers of the product actually expect when those expectations are beyond the lay experience common to all jurors. (Soule v. General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp…

  17. Court case · California Supreme Court · December 19, 2005 · in the opinion

    Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation (2005)

    …by overhead electrical wires\]; see also Rest.2d Torts, § 343A \[possessor of land liable for obvious danger if "the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such. . . obviousness"\].) The question before us is how these general principles…

  18. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 2009 · in the opinion

    Short v. Sequoia Ventures, Inc. (2009)

    …offer competent and admissible evidence that Sequoia's predecessor in interest negligently or defectively designed and/or constructed the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) power plant where Gary Short was allegedly exposed to asbestos…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · California Supreme Court · August 28, 1997 · in the opinion

    Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997)

    …contained both amosite and chrysotile asbestos fibers. John McKinley, who worked as an electrician at Mare Island, recalled working with Rutherford in the early 1950's. He testified that Rutherford and he were often required to…