Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.
DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 651 F.2d 908 (3d Cir. 1981)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1981-06-22
- Topic
- bankruptcy
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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed DaMato v. Turner & Newall, Ltd.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 12 opinions
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.
[3] We are satisfied that Judge Newcomer's opinion inGrabowski 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 inVolpe 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) (citingVolpewith 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).
[4] The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.Page 92