Legal Opinion

Rost, Richard, M., Exec. v. Ford Motor Co., Aplt.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 22, 2016No. 56 EAP 2014PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

JUSTICE DONOHUE

We address again the proper application of the “frequency, regularity, and proximity” criteria in asbestos product liability litigation, seeking to provide further illumination on the principles set forth in our decisions in this area, Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Co., 596 Pa. 274, 943 A.2d 216 (2007), and Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 615 Pa. 504, 44 A.3d 27 (2012). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court and the Superior Court properly applied those principles in this case, and thus affirm the judgment entered in favor of Appellees.

In October 2009,…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Hamil v. BashlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Summers v. CERTAINTEED CORP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Justice, S., Aplt. v. Trooper LombardoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. Kardos, J. v. Armstrong Pumps, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. McMunn v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
  4. E. Menkowitz, M.D., Aplt. v. Peerless PublicationsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  5. Constantine, K. v. Lenox Instr. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2024

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

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

Powered by the Exa API