Latest News
Posted in Products Liability on April 6, 2015
Kesner v. Superior Court, (First District, May 15, 2014) 2014 WL 1962217, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 14 Cal.Daily Op. Serv. 5376, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6110 A man who contracted mesothelioma filed suit against his uncle’s employer, a brake lining manufacturer, alleging that his disease was caused by exposure to asbestos which his uncle brought home…
Posted in Punitive Damages on February 9, 2015
Scott v. Ford Motor Company, (First District, March 26, 2014 | Certified for Partial Publication) 2014 WL 1244358 — Cal.Rptr.3d —- A former owner and operator of multiple service stations filed an action against Ford Motor Company, alleging that exposure to asbestos while servicing brakes and clutches…
Posted in Products Liability on June 25, 2014
Hernandez v. Amcord (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 659, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 90 A man who was diagnosed with mesothelioma brought a products liability action against the manufacturer of a plastic cement which contained asbestos. The plaintiff alleged that while working as a carpenter and in the construction industry his exposure to asbestos in the product was a…
Posted in Products Liability on April 14, 2014
Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 595, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 A man who allegedly contracted mesothelioma as a result of working for many years around pipe containing asbestos, filed a product liability action against Johns-Manville, the pipe manufacturer, as well as Special Electric, a company which supplied bags of asbestos to Johns-Manville….
Posted in Products Liability on February 22, 2011
“[T]he evidence also supports a different interpretation; that [defendant] did not share its knowledge of the dangers of asbestos with its customers or with individuals who would, predictably, be exposed to dust from its products, and that it instead sought to downplay the risk.”
Posted in Products Liability on November 19, 2009
“A manufacturer is liable in strict liability for the dangerous components of its products, and for dangerous products with which its product will necessarily be used. That was appellants’ evidence… We can see no relevance to the fact that the injury was caused by the operation of its product in conjunction with a replacement part which is no different than the original.”
Posted in Latest News on March 24, 2009
“Other manufacturers cannot be expected to determine the relative dangers of various products they do not produce or sell and certainly do not have a chance to inspect or evaluate.”