Discovery
Civ-Pro
Case Summary |
|
1886 A declaration by an expert with no knowledge of methane gas that, because he knew of no other probable explanation for the aggravation of plaintiff's allergies, he felt that they were caused by her exposure to methane gas, did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether exposure to the gas caused aggravation of plaintiff's allergies.CitationOCHOA v PG&E (Methane Leak) 61 CA4 1480 [See: Morgenroth v Pacific 54 CA3 521; Jones v Ortho 163 CA3 396] |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||