Berkowitz v. AC AND S., INC.
| Decision Date | 29 November 2001 |
| Citation | 288 A.D.2d 148,733 N.Y.S.2d 410 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | HAROLD BERKOWITZ et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants.<BR>GILBERT V. HARRISON et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants.<BR>ANTHONY MARTINE et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants.<BR>ROBERT ROTH, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants.<BR>MORTON SCHWARTZ et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants.<BR>MARCUS SCHWARTZ et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants.<BR>ANTHONY TANCREDI et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants.<BR>DONNEL G. WILLIAMS et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, and DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellants. |
Concur — Nardelli J. P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
The inability of certain of plaintiffs to identify defendant Worthington as the manufacturer of the pumps containing the asbestos to which they were allegedly exposed does not require dismissal of their actions, where defendants' own witness conceded that Worthington pumps were on a very high percentage of Navy ships during the relevant time period, and workers in the Brooklyn Navy Yard testified at their depositions that the pumps they saw on ships in the Navy Yard were manufactured by Worthington (see, Salerno v Garlock Inc., 212 AD2d 463). An issue of fact as to whether these pumps contained asbestos is raised by defendants' admission that Worthington sometimes used gaskets and packing containing asbestos; plaintiff Tancredi's production of a Worthington manual for the power plant where he worked referring to an asbestos component in one of its pumps at the plant; the testimony of defendants' witness that Worthington had "specifications for sale of product to the government which required asbestos use"; the absence of evidence that Worthington deviated from the government's specifications in the pumps it installed in ships during the relevant time periods; and the testimony of certain of plaintiffs that they observed the hand making of asbestos gaskets. Nor does it necessarily appear that Worthington had no duty to warn concerning the dangers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Abex Corp., E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-02511-ER
...component parts used with its product(s), but which it did not manufacture or supply. In Berkowitz v. A.C.&S., Inc., 733 N.Y.S.2d 410, 288 A.D.2d 148 (N.Y. App. (1st Dept.) 2001), a New York Appellate Division court held that a pump manufacturer could be held liable for injury arising from ......
-
May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.
...will be outfitted with a third party's defective product pursuant to contract specifications. Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc., 288 A.D.2d 148, 733 N.Y.S.2d 410, 411–12 (1st Dep't 2001) (pump manufacturer might have duty to warn of dangers of asbestos exposure where "government provided certain......
-
May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.
...v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 435 N.J.Super. 326, 340–41, 89 A.3d 179, 187–88 (N.J.App.Div.2014) ; Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc., 288 A.D.2d 148, 149, 733 N.Y.S.2d 410, 412 (N.Y.App.Div.2001).In Braaten, 165 Wash.2d at 386, 198 P.3d 493, the Supreme Court of Washington asserted that “the policy un......
-
Schwartz v. Abex Corp., Civil Action No. 2:05–CV–02511–ER.1
...component parts used with its product(s), but which it did not manufacture or supply. In Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc., 733 N.Y.S.2d 410, 288 A.D.2d 148 (N.Y.App. (1st Dept.) 2001), a New York Appellate Division court held that a pump manufacturer could be held liable for injury arising from......
-
Maryland Expands The Potential For Manufacturer Liability In Failure To Warn Cases By Adopting An Exception To The Bare Metal Defense
...801-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 282 P.3d 1069, 1083 (Wash. 2012); and Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc., 733 N.Y.S.2d 410, 411-12 (1st Dep't 2001); see also Schwartz v. Abex Corp., MDL 875, No. 2:05-CV-02511-ER, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68074, *2-3 (E.D. Pa. May 27,......