Dallas, TX
Defective and dangerous products Lawyer at Dallas, TX
Practice Areas: Defective and Dangerous Products, Personal Injury ... +2 more
OUTCOME:
Iowa Supreme Court clarified law concerning punitive damages and held that manufacturer can be liable for punitive damages, even if its conduct is no worse than others in the industry, if it has actual ... knowledge of the danger created by its actions.
OUTCOME: Affirmed by Plaintiff.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed ruling by the district court recognizing employer’s duty toward family members with regard to take-home asbestos exposure.
OUTCOME: Affirmed for Plaintiff
41,810-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/31/07), 949 So.2d 576, writ denied, 2007-0630 (La. 5/4/07), 956 So.2d 621. The appellate court held that the testimony of co-workers, doctors, and other experts was more ... than sufficient evidence that the worker suffered significant exposures to asbestos while working at the paper mill prior to 1952. Therefore, his tort cause of action against his employer vested prior to the enactment of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1031.1, and workers' compensation was not the worker's exclusive remedy.
OUTCOME: Affirmed.
159 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. 2005) on behalf of amicus curiae TEX-ABOTA, Inc. in case involving jury selection.
OUTCOME: Affirmed.
539 U.S. 111, 123 S. Ct. 2161 (2003) on behalf of amicus curiae Public Justice.
OUTCOME: Affirmed.
538 U.S. 135, 123 S. Ct. 1210, 155 L. Ed. 2d 261 (2003), on behalf of amicus curiae Public Justice.The United States Supreme Court held that mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing ... cancer were recoverable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.S. § 51 et seq., by the employees' suffering from asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos. The employee had to prove, however, that his alleged fear was genuine and serious.
OUTCOME: Two sentences in the judgment that dealt with the percentage fault of non-party tortfeasors were deleted as surplusage. In all other respects the judgment was affirmed.
No. 2000-2144 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/01), 813 So.2d 441. The appellate court held that the owner was not entitled to tort immunity as the worker's statutory employer. Admission of hearsay testimony that ... employees of the owner contracted mesothelioma was not reversible error. The trial court erred in eliciting from the jury the percentage of each joint tortfeasor's fault in causing the worker's asbestosis; because the worker's asbestos exposure occurred before the enactment of comparative fault laws, virile share principles applied. The jury erred in finding three of the six tortfeasors at fault; as there were thus a total of four tortfeasors at fault, including the owner, the latter's virile share was one-fourth, or 25 percent, coincidentally, the same percentage improperly awarded by the jury. There was no abuse of discretion in the awards of future medical expenses, future pain and suffering, and loss of consortium.
OUTCOME: Judgment for Plaintiff vacated and remanded.
264 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. (N.Y.) 2001), on behalf of amicus curiae American Association for Justice. Defendant gun manufacturers appealed a judgment for plaintiffs in the United States District Court for th ... e Eastern District of New York finding defendants negligent in the marketing and distribution of handguns.
OUTCOME: Affirmed for Plaintiff.
1 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied).
OUTCOME: Affirmed for Plaintiff.
988 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, pet. denied).
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
