[DOWNLOAD] "Charles Yates v. Dow Chemical Company" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Charles Yates v. Dow Chemical Company
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 12, 1979
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 70 KB

Description

costs and disbursements. The complaint alleges that on August 15, 1975, the infant plaintiff, Cheryl Latimore, and the decedent, Phyllis Yates, were passengers in a Plymouth automobile which was being driven on a public street in Brooklyn when a portion of the vehicle became disengaged and punctured the gas tank, causing a fire. This action was brought against appellant, Dow Chemical Company (Dow), and respondent, Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler), the complaint alleging, inter alia, that Chrysler manufactured and distributed the automobile in a "dangerous and defective manner" and that Dow manufactured and caused "the interior of the car to contain flammable materials, poly-plastics that gave off dense and toxic smoke and causing the severe injuries and asphyxiation". The complaint was served in January, 1977 and in March of that year Chrysler served its answer in which it cross-claimed against Dow for indemnification or contribution. In May, 1978 the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, to delete Dow as a party defendant on the ground that the causes of action against Dow had been "severed and discontinued". In a supporting affirmation, Dows attorney stated that on February 13, 1978 the plaintiffs executed a stipulation discontinuing the action as to Dow because the plaintiffs realized "after investigation and conferences" that Dow was not a proper defendant in the action. It was noted, however, that Chrysler has refused to sign the stipulation. Dows attorney further informed Special Term that Dow was preparing to move for summary judgment dismissing Chryslers cross claim against Dow, and requested that both motions be resolved together. In June, 1978 Dow moved for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim against it. In the moving papers, Dows attorney stated that after investigation, "it was determined that none of the materials allegedly in the automobile were manufactured by Dow. When this was demonstrated to the plaintiffs counsel they signed a stipulation of discontinuing action against Dow * * * Despite repeated requests Chrysler has refused to discontinue the cross claim at this time." In his supporting affidavit, Dows claims manager stated that his review of Dows records reveals the sale of certain named products which might have been incorporated into a 1972 Chrysler automobile and that none of the products purchased by Chrysler from Dow "could reasonably be described as a poly-plastic", or "would exist or be used in", or "would affect the flammability of the interior of an automobile." The only opposing paper is an affirmation by Chryslers attorney dated June 30, 1978. He stated that approximately 45 days earlier Dows counsel advised him that the plaintiffs had discontinued the action against Dow and requested a discontinuance of Chryslers cross claim; that in the one and one-half years which have elapsed since the complaint was served "virtually no discovery has taken place. Plaintiff [sic] has not as yet answered interrogatories and no depositions have been held"; that until Chrysler was advised of the plaintiffs discontinuance of the action against Dow, no investigation as to Dows involvement was conducted; and that Chrysler was relying upon the plaintiffs for proof against Dow since the plaintiffs have asserted in their complaint a number of causes of action against Dow individually. He continued: "Quite frankly, the investigation required has not been submitted to my client to determine whether or not any portions of the interior of this automobile involved products manufactured by Dow and this determination may take some considerable period of time requiring full pre-trial discovery as well." Chryslers counsel made the following offer: "If, however, counsel for plaintiff [sic] states by way of affidavit that no issue will be raised at the trial of this action concerning the flammability of any interior portions of the automobile then, and under those circumstances, your [68 A.D.2d 907 Page 909]

Download Ebook "Charles Yates v. Dow Chemical Company" PDF ePub Kindle