Supreme Court of Delaware

In an action brought by a former auto mechanic suffering from a fatal form of lung cancer claiming that dust from brake shoes and other friction products manufactured by defendant-Ford Motor Company caused his illness, a judgment in favor of plaintiff following a prior remand is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of certain of plaintiffs' experts testimony; 2) there was no merit in Ford's claims that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/24/2009
• Published 08/24/2009

Judges

• STEELE, Chief Justice:, Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS, Justices, NOBLE, Vice Chancellor constituting the court en banc.

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Eileen Penner, Andrew Tauber, Mayer Brown, LLP, Washington, DC, pro hac vice (argued) for appellants., Joseph J. Rhoades and A. Dale Bowers, Wilmington, Delaware for the Concerned Scientists as amicus curiae., Somers S. Price, Jr., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP; Matthew P. Donelson, Elzufon, Austin, Reardon, Tarlov & Mondell, P.A.; and, J. Michael Johnson, Rawle & Henderson LLP, Wilmington, Delaware for Chrysler LLC, Borg-Warner Corporation and Honeywell International, Inc., as amici curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Yvonne Takvorian Saville, Weiss & Saville, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Kevin D. McHargue, pro hac vice (argued) for appellee.