COURT FINDS PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DESIGN DEFECT, REVERSES $950,000 VERDICT Brock v. Caterpillar | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

COURT FINDS PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DESIGN DEFECT, REVERSES $950,000 VERDICT Brock v. Caterpillar | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, COURT FINDS PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DESIGN DEFECT, REVERSES $950,000 VERDICT Brock v. Caterpillar, Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

COURT FINDS PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DESIGN DEFECT, REVERSES $950, 000 VERDICT Brock v. Caterpillar

1996 ANAUTOLR 24694Andrews Automotive Litigation Reporter (Approx. 2 pages)

COURT FINDS PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DESIGN DEFECT, REVERSES $950, 000 VERDICT Brock v. Caterpillar

1996 ANAUTOLR 24694Andrews Automotive Litigation Reporter (Approx. 2 pages)

1996 Andrews Automotive Litig. Rep. 24694
Andrews Automotive Litigation Reporter
November 19, 1996
Bulldozer
Copyright (c) 1996 Andrews Publications

COURT FINDS PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DESIGN DEFECT, REVERSES $950,000 VERDICT

Brock v. Caterpillar

A divided Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel, finding that the plaintiff failed to show that a Caterpillar bulldozer was defective under Kentucky law, has reversed a damages award of $950,000. Brock v. Caterpillar, Inc. et al., Nos....
End of Document© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.