John Crane, Inc. v. Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in a case involving joint tortfeasors, trial court was not required to charge that each tortfeasor had to be a “substantial” contributing factor in producing the plaintiff s injuries in order to be considered a proximate cause of the injuries
• declining to diverge from longstanding negligence principles for public-policy reasons because the ordinary proximate-cause standard already addressed the relevant policy concerns
• declining to diverge from longstanding negligence principles for public-policy reasons because the ordinary proximate-cause standard already addressed the relevant policy concerns
• “the jury charge at issue would not have misled the jury into believing that it could award damages for a de minimis exposure to asbestos”
• “the jury charge at issue would not have misled the jury into believing that it could award damages for a de minimis exposure to asbestos”
• “[T]he jury charge [on ‘contributing factor’] would not have misled the jury into believing that it could award damages for a de minimus exposure to asbestos.” (Citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).