From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.

California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
May 3, 2012
No. A130213 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 3, 2012)

Opinion

San Francisco City & County Superior Court, No. CGC-08-274740, Honorable Harold E. Kahn, Judge

Attorneys:

Brayton Purcell and Richard M. Grant for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gordon & Rees, Matthew G. Kleiner and Kevin Whelan for Defendant and Respondent.


ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

Marchiano, P.J.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 13, 2012, be modified as follows:

The last sentence on page 18, continuing on page 19, should be modified to read:

Unlike defendant’s cigarette lighter analogy, the alleged sole and intended use of the brake arcing machine resulted in the release of contained asbestos particles.

See Garman, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at page 639.

Shields et al. v. Hennessy Industries, A130213, A130532, A130533, A131064 & A131072


Summaries of

Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.

California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
May 3, 2012
No. A130213 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD SHIELDS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HENNESSY INDUSTRIES…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division

Date published: May 3, 2012

Citations

No. A130213 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 3, 2012)