§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Joann H. Suttner,, Respondent,v.A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., Defendants, Crane Co., Appellant.

Brief

22 Cited authorities

  1. Liriano v. Hobart Corp.

    92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 477 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"

  2. Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 396 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability

  3. O'Neil v. Crane Co.

    53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 201 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that product manufacturer is not liable under any theory for harm caused by a third party's products

  4. Robinson v. Reed-Prentice

    49 N.Y.2d 471 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 422 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant was not strictly liable for defective design where evidence established that when the defendant sold the molding machine, the machine was not defective, and had the machine been left intact, the machine's safety gate and connecting interlocks would have rendered the predicate accident an impossibility

  5. Codling v. Paglia

    32 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 443 times
    Holding manufacturer liable for defective product "provided that" plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defect and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury

  6. Micallef v. Miehle Co.

    39 N.Y.2d 376 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 384 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting obviousness of the danger as a complete bar to negligence claims but retaining it with respect to strict product liability claims

  7. Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire Co.

    79 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 235 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no duty to warn about another manufacturer's product when defendant manufactured only sound products and had "no control over the production" of the defective products at issue in the case

  8. Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assocs. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

    121 A.D.3d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 115 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a duty to warn may arise in such a situation

  9. Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings

    165 Wn. 2d 373 (Wash. 2008)   Cited 84 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a manufacturer has no duty ... to warn of the dangers of exposure to asbestos in products it did not manufacture and for which the manufacturer was not in the chain of distribution"

  10. Sukljian v. Ross Son Co.

    69 N.Y.2d 89 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 152 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a retailer may be held liable under a strict liability theory for injuries from defective products sold by that retailer

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation