DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.

Decision Date22 June 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-2762,No. 80-2765,No. 80-2764,No. 80-2763,Nos. 80-2762,80-2762,80-2763,80-2764,80-2765,s. 80-2762
PartiesDaMATO, Carl A., DaMato, Rose, his wife, Appellants in, v. TURNER & NEWALL, LTD., Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Special Asbestos Company, Inc., Cassiar Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Huxley Development Corporation, Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos, Ltd., Canadian Johns-Mansville Company, Ltd., Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, GAF Corporation, Lake Asbestos Corporation of Quebec, Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., North American Asbestos Corporation, General Mining and Finance Corporation, Ltd., Turner Asbestos Fibres, Ltd., Central Asbestos Company, Ltd. and Certain Teed Corporation (Count VII Only), Raybestos Manhattan, Inc., Southern Asbestos. LINDAHL, Pearl, Administratrix of the Estate of Lindahl, Fred S., Deceased, Appellant in, v. TURNER & NEWALL, LTD. and Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. and Special Asbestos Company, Inc. and Cassiar Asbestos Corp., Ltd. and Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. and Huxley Development Corporation and Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos, Ltd. and Canadian Johns-Manville Company, Ltd. and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation and GAF Corporation, and Lake Asbestos Corporation of Quebec and Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. and North American Asbestos Corporation and General Mining and Finance Corporation, Ltd. TURNER ASBESTOS FIBRES, LTD. and Central Asbestos Company, Ltd. and Certain Teed Corporation (Count VII Only), Raybestos Manhattan, Inc., Southern Asbestos, United States of America, v. CERTAIN TEED CORPORATION, Certain-Teed Corporation (Directly and as Successor-In-Interest to Keasbey & Mattison Company) and Nicolet Industries, Inc. (Successor-In-Interest to Keasbey & Mattison Company). SAYLOR, Albert, Administrator of the Estate of Saylor, Jennie, dec'd., Appellant in, v. TURNER & NEWALL, LTD., Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Special Asbestos Company, Inc., Cassiar Asbestos Corp., Ltd., Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Huxley Development Corp., Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos, Canadian Johns-Manville Co., Ltd., Johns-Manville Sales Corp., GAF Corp., La
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Edward Rubin, Robert Redler (argued), Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin & Maxwell, Lansdale, Pa., for appellants.

Patrick T. Ryan, Virginia Gibson-Mason, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 31, 1982
    ...has been applied in asbestos cases. Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C. P.1980) (Takiff, J.); DeMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 651 F.2d 908, 909 (3d Cir. 1981); Grabowski v. Turner & Newall, 516 F.Supp. 114, 118-119 (E.D.Pa.1980). A statute of limitations is an affirmative......
  • Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 15, 1984
    ...to inform himself." Grabowski v. Turner & Newall, 516 F.Supp. 114, 118 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff'd sub nom. DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 651 F.2d 908 (3d Cir.1981) (per curiam). Nevertheless, the district court found, and we cannot disagree, that the conflicting testimony raised an issue of cr......
  • O'Brien v. Eli Lilly & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 21, 1982
    ...at 840. Moreover, this court, in Bayless v. Philadelphia Nat'l League Club, 579 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1978), and DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 651 F.2d 908 (3d Cir. 1981) (per curiam), adopted the reasoning and the precept announced by our colleague A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. (then a district ......
  • DeMartino v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, Northern Div.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • April 29, 1983
    ...& Co., 668 F.2d 704 (3d Cir.1981); Grabowski v. Turner & Newall, 516 F.Supp. 114 (E.D.Pa.1980); aff'd. DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 651 F.2d 908 (3d Cir.1981); Huber v. McElwee-Courbis Construction Co., 392 F.Supp. 1379 7 This analysis was applied in Petri, supra. There the plaintiff al......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT