Legal Opinion

In Re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases

District Court, D. Hawaii

Decided December 9, 1986PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE STATE OF THE ART AS A DEFENSE TO THEIR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS

BELLONI, District Judge.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine asks the court to exclude “state of the art” evidence as a defense to their strict products liability claim. I denied the motion because the evidence is relevant to the plaintiffs’ negligence claim. However, I am striking the defense as it relates to plaintiffs strict liability claims.

BACKGROUND

This is a consolidated case wherein thirty-four former Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard employees seek damages against multiple defendants…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Feldman v. Lederle LaboratoriesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  3. Phillips v. Kimwood MacHine CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  5. Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Ranches v. City and County of HonoluluHawaii Supreme Court · 2007
  3. In Re Hawaii Federal Asbestos CasesDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1988
  4. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Supreme Court · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API