Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 5/6/1988

Eckenrod v. GAF Corp.

Citations

544 A.2d 50
375 Pa. Super. 187
1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1425

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that fact that specific asbestos products were in the same facility did not show adequate exposure to those products
reasoning that “[wjhether a plaintiff could successfully get to a jury or defeat a motion for summary judgment by showing circumstantial evidence depends on the frequency of the use of the product and the regularity of plaintiffs employment in proximity thereto”
requiring proof that a plaintiff “inhaled asbestos fibers shed by the specific manufacturer’s product”
requiring proof that a plaintiff “inhaled asbestos fibers shed by the specific manufacturer’s product
in order to defeat defendant’s motion, plaintiff must present evidence showing that he or she was exposed to an asbestos product supplied by defendant
in order to defeat defendant's motion, plaintiff must present evidence showing that he or she was exposed to an asbestos product supplied by defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Olszewski, Tamilia, Kelly

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

91 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.