Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

08/26/94 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION v.

August 26, 1994

OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION
v.
WILLIE J. JAMES OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION V. JAMES B. HENSON OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION V. HAROLD C. GREEN, SR.



Appeals from Jefferson Circuit Court. (CV-92-003376). William A. Jackson, Trial Judge.

Released for Publication December 5, 1994.

Houston, Almon, Shores, Kennedy, and Cook, JJ., concur.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Houston

HOUSTON, JUSTICE.

The defendant, Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation ("Owens-Corning"), appeals from separate judgments entered on jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs, Harold C. Green, Sr., James B. Henson, and Willie J. James, in their actions seeking damages for exposure to asbestos. We affirm.

The plaintiffs, retired steelworkers, sued Owens-Corning under various legal theories, seeking damages based on allegations that they had contracted asbestosis, a progressive and incurable lung disease, because of prolonged on-the-job exposure to asbestos products that had been manufactured by Owens-Corning. A jury returned verdicts of $200,000, $200,000, and $133,000 in compensatory damages in favor of Green, Henson, and James respectively. Owens-Corning presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Owens-Corning's motion for a partial summary judgment on the claims made by Green and Henson for future medical expenses;

2. Whether the trial court erred in allowing Green and Henson to introduce evidence of future medical expenses;

3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Owens-Corning's motion for a directed verdict on the claims made by Green and Henson for future medical expenses;

4. Whether the plaintiffs' medical experts improperly relied on a medical report that had not been admitted into evidence and whether the plaintiffs' reference to that report during the course of the trial constituted reversible error;

5. Whether the trial court erred in denying Owens-Corning's motion for a partial summary judgment with respect to the claims made by Henson and James that were based on allegations of exposure to asbestos after 1971;

6. Whether the trial court erred in denying Owens-Corning's motion in limine to exclude evidence of exposure by Henson and James to asbestos after 1971;

7. Whether the trial court erred in its oral instructions to the jury and in denying Owens-Corning's written requested jury instructions; and,

8. Whether the consolidation of these three cases for trial prejudiced Owens-Corning by confusing the jury and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.