You are here: / Products Liability
, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL WERE NOT PRODUCTS TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO WARN OF THE HAZARDS OF BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM THE OVENS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant (Wilputte), which sold coke ovens for steel production, did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, the ovens were not “products” triggering the duty to warn. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted (by the Appellate Division). Plaintiff’s decedent worked on top of the coke ovens and alleged breathing the toxic substances caused lung cancer. Plaintiffs alleged defendant had a duty to warn plaintiff’s decedent to use a respirator when working on the ovens. The Appellate Division had determined the coke ovens, housed in so-called “batteries,” were akin to buildings and construction of the buildings was a service, not a product:

… [D]efendant has not met its burden in showing that the coke ovens at issue are not products as a matter of law. Regardless of the alterations Bethlehem [the steel manufacturer] may have made to the scale and specifications of the battery at large, the ovens themselves served one function: the production of coke. This process was standard across all variations of coke ovens that Wilputte sold, ultimately placing the hazardous thing at issue squarely within the category of products to which liability has attached in the failure-to-warn context. …

… Wilputte was responsible for placing the ovens into the stream of commerce and that it derived financial benefit from its role in the production process. Indeed, by the time decedent began working for Bethlehem, Wilputte had sold hundreds of coke ovens to plants … . Wilputte also marketed its ovens with informational brochures showing the completed ovens and their functionality, indicating that Wilputte, not Bethlehem, was the commercial source of the product. … Although the ovens were largely assembled and completed on-site, that merely speaks to the logistical realties of the market of which Wilputte had a considerable share. …

… [T]he record supports Supreme Court’s conclusion that Wilputte was in the best position to assess the safety of the coke ovens because of its superior knowledge regarding the ovens’ intended functionality … . “A major determinant of the existence of a duty to warn” is an assessment of “whether the manufacturer is in a superior position to know of and warn against those hazards” inherent to its product … . Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 04640, CtApp 6-11-19

 

,

THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY WHEN A SAFETY FEATURE IS AVAILABLE BUT THE BUYER CHOOSES NOT TO PURCHASE IT, MAY BE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THE BUYER IS A RENTAL BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT’S AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S CONTRARY RULING REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) the so-called Scarangella exception may apply where the manufacturer sells its product to a rental business; and (2) the jury instruction misstated the law concerning a manufacturer’s liability where its product is sold to a rental business. The Scarangella case carved out an exception to strict products liability which may apply when the manufacturer has made a safety feature optional and the buyer chooses not to purchase it. Here the plaintiff was operating a Bodcat loader when he was crushed by a small tree which came into the cab. Bobcat sells a cab enclosure (“door kit”) which may have deflected the tree. The rental company, Taylor, which purchased the Bobcat and rented it to plaintiff, did not outfit the rented Bobcat with the door kit. The trial court held that the Scarangella exception is never available to a manufacturer where the product is sold to a rental company. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held the Scarangella exception can be available where a rental business is the purchaser, depending upon the evidence:

[In Scarangella] we held that a product is not defective — and a manufacturer or seller is not strictly liable for a design defect based upon a claim that optional safety equipment should have been a standard feature — when the following three conditions are met: “(1) the buyer is thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the product and its use and is actually aware that the safety feature is available; (2) there exist normal circumstances of use in which the product is not unreasonably dangerous without the optional equipment; and (3) the buyer is in a position, given the range of uses of the product, to balance the benefits and the risks of not having the safety device in the specifically contemplated circumstances of the buyer’s use of the product” … . When these elements are present, “the buyer, not the manufacturer, is in the superior position to make the risk-utility assessment, and a well-considered decision by the buyer to dispense with the optional safety equipment will excuse the manufacturer from liability” … . * * *

Having deemed Scarangella to be wholly inapplicable, neither the trial court nor the Appellate Division examined whether Bobcat raised a triable question of fact warranting a Scarangella charge. … For purposes of resolution of this appeal, it is sufficient to observe as a matter of law, based on the evidence presented at this trial, that Bobcat was not entitled to a directed verdict in its favor on the Scarangella exception. Whether a Scarangella instruction will be appropriate on retrial is a matter for the trial court to determine based on the evidence presented at that time.  Fasolas v Bobcat of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03657, CtApp 5-9-19

 

, ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SLANTED FLOOR OF THE IN-GROUND POOL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WAY THE POOL WAS BUILT, THE LANDLORDS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DIVING ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the products liability cause of action against the builder of an in-ground swimming pool (Swim Tech) properly survived summary judgment and further determined the out-of-possession landlords’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff dove into the pool and struck his head on a slant portion of the pool wall/floor. With respect to the property owners’ liability, the court wrote:

An out-of-possession landowner who has assumed the obligation to make repairs to its property can be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition if it is established that the landowner created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . Whether a dangerous condition exists on property so as to create liability on the part of a landowner depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . ” [T]he owner of a private residential swimming pool has a duty to maintain the pool in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk'” … . A landowner also has the duty to warn of potentially dangerous conditions that are not readily observable … . ” To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the defendants] to discover and remedy it'” … .

Here, the owners failed to establish, prima facie, that the slanted wall in the deep end of their pool was not dangerous or that they lacked constructive notice of the condition … . McDermott v Santos, 2019 NY Slip Op 03039, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

,

DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the distributor’s (Skyfood’s) and seller’s (E & A’s) motions for summary judgment in this products liability and negligent design action should have been granted. Plaintiff lost several fingers when he tried to remove a piece of cheese from a meat grinder being used to grate cheese by reaching into the hopper without turning the machine off. The court held that the plaintiff’s own actions constituted to sole proximate cause of the injury and the danger was open and obvious (no duty to warn):

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Skyfood’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging strict products liability and negligent design insofar as asserted against it. Skyfood established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action by submitting, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of the plaintiff and the affidavit of an expert, which showed that the plaintiff’s own conduct of knowingly placing his hand into the hopper of the operating cheese grater without turning it off was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of the separate motions of Skyfood and E & A which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging failure to warn insofar as asserted against each of them. Skyfood and E & A made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action insofar as asserted against them by establishing, as a matter of law, that they had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the open and obvious danger of knowingly placing his hand into a cheese grater in close proximity to its spinning blade … . Hernandez v Asoli, 2019 NY Slip Op 02688, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FARM EQUIPMENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this products liability action should have been granted. Plaintiff “was working inside of a piece of farm equipment known as a grain cart, she lost her footing and her right leg became caught in a rotating auger.” A steel safety guard covering the auger had apparently been removed:

… [T]he Killbros defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert, which was incorporated by reference into Bentley’s moving papers, who opined that plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred if the steel safety guard had not been removed. …

Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability causes of action insofar as they are predicated on a design defect theory by submitting evidence that the product was reasonably safe … . The Killbros defendants’ expert averred that the steel safety guard was manufactured in accordance with industry standards, was designed to last the life of the product, and was “state of the art” inasmuch as it was permanently welded to the interior of the grain cart and could not be removed except by using an acetylene torch or other such heavy-duty tool … . …

… [T]he Killbros defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action against them alleging negligent design and manufacture. “[I]nasmuch as there is almost no difference between a prima facie case in negligence and one in strict liability,” we conclude that plaintiffs similarly failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to their cause of action for negligent design and manufacture … . Beechler v Kill Bros. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 01993, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S PROOF THAT DEFENDANT SUPPLIED THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE WIRE MESH TO THE RETAILER IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WAS SPECULATIVE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Prime Source’s motion for summary judgment in this products liability case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when a roll of wire mesh recoiled and struck him. Prime Source presented it was not in the manufacturing or distribution chain of the wire mesh and plaintiff’s proof too speculative to raise a question of fact:

In strict products liability, a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, or retailer who sells a product in a defective condition is liable for injury which results from the use of the product regardless of privity, foreseeability, or the exercise of due care … . Liability, however, may not be imposed upon a party that is outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain … . The identity of the manufacturer or supplier of a defective product may be established by circumstantial evidence … . The circumstantial evidence of the identity of the manufacturer or supplier of a defective product causing personal injury must establish, however, “that it is reasonably probable, not merely possible or evenly balanced, that the defendant was the source of the offending product” … . “Speculative or conjectural evidence of the manufacturer’s identity is not enough” … .

Prime Source established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain of the mesh … . In opposition to the motion by Prime Source, the plaintiff’s attorney submitted an affirmation in which he stated that on the return date of the order to show cause which commenced the proceeding to obtain pre-action disclosure, a representative from Sand Man [the retailer] “produced a sheet of paper on which she had written the names of two suppliers she claims had supplied wire mesh to Sand Man” prior to the date of the subject accident. This affirmation was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, because it did not establish “that it is reasonably probable, not merely possible or evenly balanced” … that Prime Source, rather than Steel Services, was the source of the mesh … . The plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence “that might permit a reasoned inference” that Prime Source, rather than Steel Services, supplied the mesh to Sand Man … . Tyminskyy v Sand Man Bldg. Materials, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00632, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

, , ,

A CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS NO LONGER DEEMED CONSENT TO BE SUED IN NEW YORK, FORD’S AND GOODYEAR’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SUIT STEMMED FROM A ROLLOVER ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite-Nelson, determined that a products liability case (stemming from a traffic accident in Virginia) against Ford, the manufacturer of the vehicle which rolled over, and Goodyear, the manufacturer of a tire which allegedly failed, could not be brought in New York. The plaintiffs alleged general jurisdiction over both companies based upon business done generally in New York and registration with the NY Department of State. The plaintiffs did not allege long-arm jurisdiction. Neither the vehicle nor the tire was manufactured or purchased from the defendants in New York. The plaintiff had purchased the vehicle from a New York nonparty and had used the vehicle in New York.

We consider on these appeals whether, following the United States Supreme Court decision in Daimler AG v Bauman (571 US 117), a foreign corporation may still be deemed to have consented to the general jurisdiction of New York courts by virtue of having registered to do business in New York and appointed a local agent for the service of process. We conclude that it may not. * * *

We agree with those courts that asserting jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based on the mere registration and the accompanying appointment of an in-state agent by the foreign corporation, without the express consent of the foreign corporation to general jurisdiction, would be “unacceptably grasping” under Daimler (Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 US at 138).

The Court of Appeals does not appear to have … relied upon its consent-by-registration theory since International Shoe was decided. We think that this is a strong indicator that its rationale is confined to that era … and that it no longer holds in the post-Daimler landscape. We conclude that a corporate defendant’s registration to do business in New York and designation of the secretary of state to accept service of process in New York does not constitute consent by the corporation to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation’s affiliations with New York. Aybar v Aybar, 2019 NY Slip Op 00412, Second Dept 1-23-19

CPLR 3211(a)(8)

 

,

THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS PURCHASED AT A PARTICULAR HOME DEPOT STORE, IN THE FACE OF PROOF THE STORE DID NOT OPEN UNTIL YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED PURCHASE, THE OWNER OF THE LADDER ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS EITHER PURCHASED AT A DIFFERENT TIME OR AT A DIFFERENT HOME DEPOT STORE, HOME DEPOT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this defective ladder products liability case. Defendant Garberg, the owner of the ladder, alleged he purchased the ladder at a specific Home Depot store between 1994 and 1995. Home Depot demonstrate the store in question did not open until 2001. Garberg then submitted an affidavit alleging he either bought ladder after the store opened or he bought the ladder at another Home Depot store (which was identified):

” [L]iability may not be imposed for . . . strict products liability upon a party that is [*2]outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain'”… . Here, Home Depot established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was outside the manufacturing, selling, or distribution chain… . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this issue. Garberg’s 2016 affidavit contained assertions made for the first time in opposition to the motion and merely raised feigned issues designed to avoid the consequences of Garberg’s earlier affidavit. Garberg swore to the 2016 affidavit after he settled with the plaintiff, after the close of discovery, and after Home Depot submitted its conclusive proof establishing that he could not have purchased the defective ladder when and where he claimed he had. The 2016 affidavit speculated about a possible purchase at a different Home Depot location that, unlike the Cropsey Avenue location, the parties did not have the opportunity to explore during discovery. Garberg also contradicted his prior unambiguous assertion about the timing of his purchase. His 2016 opposition affidavit was, therefore, insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Rooney v Garberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 08521, Second Dept 11-12-18

 

, , ,

VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence should not have been denied and an adverse inference jury instruction was appropriate. Plaintiff alleged a “soft-close” mechanism on a van malfunctioned causing her finger to be crushed. After the “soft-close” mechanism was replaced it was destroyed:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The defendant sustained its burden of establishing that the plaintiff was obligated to preserve the soft-close automatic door mechanism on the driver’s side door at the time of its destruction in September 2015, when the plaintiff had the mechanism replaced, that the evidence was negligently destroyed before the defendant had an opportunity to inspect it, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the litigation … . Nevertheless, since the defendant’s ability to prove its defense was not fatally compromised by the destruction of the evidence… , the appropriate sanction for the spoliation herein is not to strike the complaint, but rather to direct that an adverse inference charge be given against the plaintiff at trial with respect to the unavailable evidence … . Richter v BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08163, Second Dept 11-28-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE INFERENCE (SPOLIATION, VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the grant of defendant-Ford’s motion to set aside the verdict in this asbestos case, over two concurring opinions and a dissenting opinion, determined the evidence of a causal connection between the asbestos in brake linings on Ford vehicles and plaintiff’s decedent’s mesothelioma was legally insufficient. Plaintiff’s decedent worked in a garage and was exposed to asbestos-laden dust from new and used brakes, clutches and manifold and engine gaskets:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that respondent Ford Motor Company’s conduct was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries pursuant to the standards set forth in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 NY3d 434 [2006]) and Cornell v 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC(22 NY3d 762 [2014]). Accordingly, on this particular record, defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under CPLR 4404 (a) … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2018 NY Slip Op 08059, CtApp 11-27-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/TOXIC TORTS  (ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/MESOTHELIOMA  (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy