§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation.--------------------------------Doris Kay Dummitt,, Respondent,v.A.W. Chesterton, et al., Defendants, Crane Co., Appellant.

Brief

223 Cited authorities

  1. Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing

    564 U.S. 604 (2011)   Cited 744 times   143 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state tort law that required generic drug manufacturers to provide adequate warning labels was preempted where federal law required manufacturers to use the same labels as their brand-name counterparts

  2. Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock

    513 U.S. 527 (1995)   Cited 924 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the location test was satisfied when a crane, attached to a barge, was used to lift and replace pilings around a bridge pier and a tunnel flooded after an accident

  3. Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett

    570 U.S. 472 (2013)   Cited 414 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding "state-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug's warnings are pre-empted by federal law under PLIVA"

  4. Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C.

    1 N.Y.3d 280 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 1,760 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law § 240 violation"

  5. Murphy v. American Home Prod

    58 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 1,846 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the limitation period for commencing a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the three-year period of N YCiv.Prac.L. R. § 214

  6. Amatulli v. Delhi Constr Corp.

    77 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 727 times
    Holding that a pool manufacturer was not held liable for injuries sustained when a plaintiff dove headfirst into a shallow above-ground pool where the manufacturer provided explicit instructions requiring above-ground installation but the user installed the pool in the ground thereby obscuring the shallow nature of the pool's depth

  7. Liriano v. Hobart Corp.

    92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 476 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"

  8. Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley

    521 U.S. 424 (1997)   Cited 149 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a separate tort cause of action is not available under FELA to recover lump-sum medical monitoring costs

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

    96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 390 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

  10. Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.

    59 N.Y.2d 102 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 674 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " manufacturer is held liable regardless of his lack of actual knowledge of the condition of the product because he is in the superior position to discover any design defects and alter the design before making the product available to the public"

  11. Section 740 - Retaliatory action by employers; prohibition

    N.Y. Lab. Law § 740   Cited 554 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting retaliation by an employer where an employee reports "an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation"

  12. Section 1146 - Drivers to exercise due care

    N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1146   Cited 262 times
    Imposing criminal liability on a driver who, while failing to exercise due care, collides with a pedestrian or bicyclist and causes either physical injury or serious physical injury

  13. Section 99B-5 - Claims based on inadequate warning or instruction

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-5   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a manufacturer or seller of a product is not liable "in any product liability action for a claim based upon inadequate warning ... unless the claimant proves [among other elements] that ... the product, without an adequate warning ..., created an unreasonably dangerous condition that the manufacturer or seller knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, posed a substantial risk of harm to a reasonably foreseeable claimant"

  14. Section 895.047 - Product liability

    Wis. Stat. § 895.047   Cited 75 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a plaintiff to prove that "the defective condition was a cause" of her injuries