 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
United States Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore9/12/1994
ireproofing. Whatever this information may have disclosed about the U.S. Mineral Product Company's product, it reveals
nothing about the Asbestospray product or its condition once installed in a building. See Kansas City v. Keene Corp., supra, 855 S.W.2d at 375 (rejecting evidence of flaking and dusting of an unsealed asbestos ceiling at Rutgers University where there was "no showing that the material on the ceiling at Rutgers University was the same or similar to Keene's product").
We conclude that the City failed to introduce sufficient evidence of actual malice on the part of Asbestospray for the punitive damages claim to have been submitted to the jury.
Therefore, we affirm the portion of the judgment against Asbestospray representing compensatory damages, and we reverse the portion of the judgment against Asbestospray representing punitive damages.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT ASBESTOSPRAY CORP. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. EACH PARTY TO PAY ITS OWN COSTS.
Disposition
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT ASBESTOSPRAY CORP. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. EACH PARTY TO PAY ITS OWN COSTS.
Judges Footnotes
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|