Legal Opinion

Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 13, 2012No. A130213PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MARCHIANO, P. J.

Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions appeal from judgments on the pleadings in favor of defendant Hennessy Industries, Inc. (Hennessy), the manufacturer of a brake arcing machine. Each of the plaintiffs alleged Hennessy’s machine was designed and used exclusively for the purpose of shaping, by grinding action, brake linings that were manufactured by others, but contained asbestos fibers that were dangerously released into the air by the normal action of Hennessy’s machine. The trial court ruled that, because Hennessey’s machine itself was not made with asbestos and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. O'NEIL v. Crane Co.California Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
  2. Cabasug v. Crane Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2013
  3. Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2014

6 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