1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.3d
  4. 89 A.3d
  5. 89 A.3d 179 (2014)
 

HUGHES v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.

DOCKET NOS. A-0778-11T2, A-0779-11T2, A-4912-11T2, A-4913-11T2

89 A.3d 179 (2014)

435 N.J. Super. 326

Elbert HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.; Brand Insulations, Inc; Foster Wheeler Corp.; Garlock, Inc.; Metropolitan Life; Westinghouse Electric Corp.; Durametallic Corp.; General Electric Co., and Melrath Gasket & Supply, Defendants, and Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. Michael Greever, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. Chesterton Co.; Brand Insulations, Inc; Foster Wheeler Corp.; Garlock, Inc.; Metropolitan Life; Hopeman Brothers, Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.; Madsen & Howell, Inc.; Durametallic Corp.; Woolsulate Corp.; General Electric Co.; and Melrath Gasket & Supply, Defendants, and Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. Gregory Fayer, Executor of the Estate of Thomas Fayer, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. Chesterton Co.; Brand Insulations, Inc; Durametallic Corp.; Foster Wheeler Corp.; General Electric Co.; Metropolitan Life; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Hopeman Brothers, Inc.; Madsen & Howell, Inc.; Woolsulate Corp.; and Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., Defendants, and Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. Angelo Mystrena and Kathleen Mystrena, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A.W. Chesterton Co.; Brand Insulations, Inc; Durametallic Corp.; Foster Wheeler Corp.; Metropolitan Life; Hopeman Brothers, Inc.; Madsen & Howell, Inc.; Woolsulate Corp.; and Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., Defendants, and Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided April 23, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Franklin P. Solomon argued the cause for appellants (Locks Law Firm, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Solomon and James J. Pettit , Cherry Hill, on the briefs).

Richard J. Mirra and Steven F. Satz argued the cause for respondent (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Mirra and Mr. Satz, New Brunswick, of counsel and on the briefs).

Before Judges FISHER, ESPINOSA and KOBLITZ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ESPINOSA, J.A.D.

In these consolidated cases, we consider whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn that component parts, which will be regularly replaced as part of routine maintenance, contain asbestos. Under the facts of this case, we find it would be reasonable, practical and feasible to impose such a duty here. However, we also reject plaintiffs' argument that causation may be proved by proximity to defendant...

NEVER MISS A DECISION. START YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.

Uncompromising quality. Enduring impact.
Your support ensures a bright future for independent legal reporting.

As you are aware we have offered this as a free subscription over the past years and we have now made it a paid service.Look forward to your continued patronage.

GET STARTED
OR

Read it with your Leagle account.
Sign in to continue


Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases