Legal Opinion
Graham v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided October 4, 1990PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TAYLOR, Judge.
I
Dr. Cunitz testifies regularly in the asbestos trials as an expert in the field of product warnings. His background is human factors psychology. This motion (made in the form of an objection) seeks to bar his testimony that “the manufacturer of a product has a duty to warn, once the “possibility” of potential injury becomes known or the manufacturer should of [sic] (have) known of the possibility of injury”. The motion was made by Celotex Corporation and Keene Corporation [defendants].
Defendants’ position is that the manufacturer’s duty to warn exists only where there is…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- General Motors Corporation v. FreemanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1960
- Robelen Piano Company v. Di FonzoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1961
- Schneider v. Chrysler Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- Ciociola v. Delaware Coca-Cola Bottling CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 1961
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development CtrSupreme Court of Delaware · 2018
- Freed v. St. Jude Med., Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2019
- Brower v. Metal Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1998
- In Re Asbestos LitigationSupreme Court of Delaware · 2002
- Colgain v. Oy Partek AbSupreme Court of Delaware · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.