U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1981

DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided June 22, 1981

651 F.2d 908 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Edward Rubin, Robert Redler (argued), Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin & Maxwell, Lans-dale, Pa., for appellants., Patrick T. Ryan, Virginia Gibson-Mason, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., David Booth Beers (argued), S. Elizabeth Gibson, Thomas R. Andrews, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D.C., for Cassiar Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Edward B. Joseph, Frederic L. Goldfein, Ominsky, Joseph & Welsh, Philadelphia, Pa., for Asbestos Corp., Ltd., Robert M. Britton, James F. Gallo, Post & Schell, Philadelphia, Pa., for Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Charles W. Craven, Marshall, Dennehey & Warner, Philadelphia, Pa., for Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos, Canadian Johns-Manville Co., Johns-Manville Sales Corp., G. Wayne Renneisen, Joel D. Gusky, Harvey, Pennington, Hertin & Renneisen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision. The 9 that cite it most often are listed here.

O'brien, Ann C. v. Eli Lilly & Company E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. The Upjohn Company, and Winthrop Company, Inc (3d Cir. 1982)
Anthony v. Abbott Laboratories (R.I. 1985)
DeMartino v. Albert Einstein Medical Center (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)
Owens v. Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1987)
Gunsalus v. Celotex Corp. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1987)
Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. (3d Cir. 1985)
Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. (3d Cir. 1985)
Sabo v. Parisi (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1984)
Mosley v. Secretary of the Navy (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The question for decision in this appeal by plaintiffs from adverse summary judgments in diversity actions brought under Pennsylvania law is whether the district court erred in determining that when the plaintiffs knew the physical causes and sources of their injuries, their lack of knowledge about the legal bases for prospective claims will not toll the Pennsylvania statute of limitations. We affirm.

We are satisfied that Judge Newcomer’s opinion in Grabowski v. Turner & Newall, 516 F.Supp. 114 (E.D.Pa. 1980), sets forth the appropriate legal precepts and properly applied the undisputed facts thereto. Additional support for the view we take is found in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 P.C.R. 290 (Phila.C.P. 1980) (Takiff, J.). See also Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc., —— Pa.Super. -, -, 425 A.2d 428, 436 (1981) (citing Volpe with approval); cf. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979) (interpreting two year limitation period in Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.