The administratrix of Matthews’s estate (plaintiff) brought suit on a theory of strict products liability, claiming that the safety switch was defective. Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed. Park v. Moore, 164 Ga. App. That being said we also have a compendium that lists all our casebriefs in alpha order. A jury awarded Vella maintenance and cure for his injury. The evidence here was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the sum of $8 million was an amount necessary to deter Ford from repeating its conduct; that is, its conscious decisions to defer implementation of safety devices in order to protect its profits. Foy R. Devine, Albert Sidney Johnson, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Wade H. Watson III, Seaton D. Purdom, for appellees. See also Adams v. Cowart, 224 Ga. 210, 214 (5) (160 SE2d 805) (1968). FORD MOTOR CO. v. STUBBLEFIELD Email ... Cited Cases . (a) The trial court instructed the jury: "Attorney's fees and the expenses of litigation may be awarded where the defendant has acted in bad faith in the transaction and dealings out of which the cause of action arose, or has been stubbornly litigious or has caused plaintiffs unnecessary trouble and expense." Summary of Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews, S. Ct Mississippi [1974] Defenses. See J. C. Lewis Motor Co. v. Williams, 85 Ga. App. 10-4, 2010 WL 98699 (Ct. Int'l Trade Jan. 12, 2010). 486, 487 (1) (224 SE2d 168) (1976), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 237 Ga. 554 (220 SE2d 379) (1976); Ford Motor Co. v. Hanley, 128 Ga. App. Oct 7, 2020 Tr. From F.2d, Reporter Series. Op. For the casebooks listed we brief all the cases portrayed in the case book and not the Notes cases. 41 CFR §§ 105-63.403; 105-63.404 (c). United States Supreme Court. Union Carbide v. Holton, 136 Ga. App. Friend v. Gen. Motors Corp., 118 Ga. App. All of these exhibits were relevant to the issue of Ford's continuing negligence in regard to its knowledge of the safety hazard, its failure to warn the public of the danger and its continued marketing of the dangerous product, as well as to the issue of callous disregard upon which basis punitive damages were sought. Div. Judgment affirmed. Summary of Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews, S. Ct Mississippi [1974] Defenses. A definition of negligence quoted with approval by our Supreme Court is "`the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.' One internal memo estimated that "the total financial effect of the Fuel System Integrity program [would] reduce Company profits over the 1973-1976 cycle by $(109) million," and recommended that Ford "defer adoption of the [safety measures] on all affected cars until 1976 to realize a design cost savings of $20.9 million compared to 1974." "It follows that, where evidence is pertinent and admissible, it can not be excluded merely because it tends to damage or impair the cause of the party against whom it is being introduced. :.WC FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. APPELLANT / ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. Brief of respondent Adam Bandemer in opposition filed. DiGirolamo, supra. 320, 321 (1) (231 SE2d 105) (1976); McClurd v. Reddick, 135 Ga. App. Nov 18 2013: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 26, 2013. The answer to that question is complicated by a dispute over the interpretation of the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by the California Court of Appeal and whether that court's decision is binding on federal courts in diversity cases. Ford contends that the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a new trial because sufficient competent evidence was not presented to support the verdict on the issue of negligence or to establish that any act or omission on its part was the proximate cause of appellees' alleged damages. It is a defective door latch case where the decedent was thrown from a Ford F-150. 7. YUN V. FORD MOTOR CO. 647 A.2d 841 (1994) CASE BRIEF YUN V. FORD MOTOR CO. 647 A.2d 841 (1994) NATURE OF THE CASE: Yun (Ps) sought review of the grant of summary judgment which dismissed their claims against Ford (Ds), car manufacturer, service center, van conversion company, and manufacturing company. 873, 876 (2) (152 SE2d 796) (1966). Get Posey v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 111 P.3d 162 (2005), Idaho Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Petition GRANTED. NCLC's brief argued that the “any exposure” theory is both bad science and bad law: it stands in sharp contrast to normal causation methodology, which requires an expert to assess a dose first and then demonstrate that the dose received was sufficient to cause disease. VIDED. No. Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed. Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982) Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 385, 387 (1) (190 SE2d 815) (1972). Ford defended against the claim on the grounds that Matthews had misused the tractor. The question presented to the jury was whether Ford, through the negligent design and placement of its fuel system in the 1975 Mustang II, exposed the occupants of this automobile to unreasonable risk of injury and, insofar as punitive damages were concerned, whether Ford's management acted with that entire want of care which would give rise to conscious indifference to the consequences in marketing the automobile. Accordingly, an automobile manufacturer may be held liable for negligently producing a vehicle with a defect which causes injury when activated by a foreseeable collision. We note initially that while there was a wrongful death award made to the mother, punitive damages are not available in a wrongful death claim, Truelove v. Wilson, 159 Ga. App. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - October 15, 2002 in Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 07, 2002 in Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley Steve W. Berman: The amicus seem to suggest that plaintiffs never want to … 2d 711 (E.D. [1] Appellees alleged that Ford *335 was negligent in designing the 1975 Mustang II automobile and in failing to warn of a danger of which it had knowledge. After this analysis Mr. Ardnt stated that in his opinion the design utilized by Ford in the Mustang II was not reasonably safe. Co. v. Bell, 124 Ga. 663, 668 (4) (53 SE 109) (1905); Roescher v. Lehigh Acres Dev., 125 Ga. App. 117, at 122 (115 SE2d 877) (1960). (Emphasis supplied.). [Cit.] Relevant Facts: Matthews was killed as a result of being run over by his tractor and dragged underneath a disc attachment. trial. (Emphasis supplied.) 347, 351 (2(a)) (85 SE2d 552) (1954). VIDED. 311, 316 (6) (196 *336 SE2d 454) (1973); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Jenkins, 114 Ga. App. . United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 567 F.3d 1120 (2009) Facts. 1695 (1974) (see 44 USC § 2107, note), expressly provide for archival processing of the "Nixon" tapes, including "reproducing and transcribing tape recordings" which are under the "exclusive legal custody and control" of the Administrator of General Services. Mississippi Supreme Court 291 So.2d 169 (1974) Facts. Ford complains that the form of the verdict submitted to the jury effectively compelled them to award exemplary damages for appellees if they found aggravating circumstances. Thus, Ford contends the trial court erred by giving a charge that was, at least in part, inapplicable. Also, since punitive damages were sought, one of the material facts at issue in this case was whether Ford acted with conscious disregard for the consequences when making policy decisions as to fuel tank safety on the Mustang II, and this conversation clearly served to "elucidate or throw light upon" that question. L. 93-526, 88 Stat. McMurray, C. J., and Deen, P. J., concur. FORD MOTOR CO. v. UNITED STATES(1972) No. See Allen v. Brackett, 165 Ga. App. From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs... Wangen v. Ford Motor Company. Main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service: Jan 13 2020: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020. FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. Commercial &c. Ins. Firestone Tire &c. Co. v. King, 145 Ga. App. Facts of the case. v. Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer; Docket No. We do not think this question erroneously persuaded the jury that they had no choice but to award punitive damages, particularly when read in context with the entire verdict form. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term; 19-369: Minn. Oct 7, 2020 Tr. Wisconsin Supreme Court 97 Wis. 2d 260 (1980) Facts. JOHN B. COLEMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES OPINION OF … 75. The footnote stated:In Jahadi v. Ford Motor Co., no. [Cit.]" Argument to be rescheduled for the October Term 2020. "44 U. S.C. § 2112 (b) provides: `There shall be an official seal for the National Archives of the United States which shall be judicially noticed. After a 6-month trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding the Gray’s almost $600K in compensatory damages and awarding Robert Grimshaw $2. We reverse the Trade Court's jurisdictional decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 343, 349 (5)-350 (270 SE2d 883) (1980). has approved the verdict, this court is without power to interfere unless it is clear from the record that the verdict of the jury was prejudiced or biased or was procured by corrupt means.' Considering all of the circumstances in this case, we do not find the trial court erred in declining to find the verdict excessive." Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459 (1945) Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana. Ford's internal documents referred to this as a "failure mode," and the problem was known and documented as early as 1968 when Ford analyzed the hazard of post-crash, fuel-fed automobile fires as shown by accident data. The evidence in the instant case amply authorized an award of litigation expenses on this basis as Ford was shown to have actual knowledge before the sale of a defect in its product from which it could have reasonably foreseen injury of the specific type sustained here. Party name: DRI - The Voice Of The Defense Bar. Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Ford Motor Company. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. .'" – Allied Steel provided steel for Ford Motor Co. – Indemnity agreement – a party undertakes contingent liability for a loss threatening another. 3. Div. Nov 20 2019: Brief of respondent Adam Bandemer in opposition filed. Lisa A. Syllabus. v. Baker, 165 Ga. App. These paired appeals arise out of a jury verdict against Honeywell International Incorporated 1 and Ford Motor Company for … The trial court did not err in failing to direct a verdict for Ford, or in denying Ford's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence. If your answer is `yes,' what amount do you find to be sufficient to keep Ford Motor Company from repeating such conduct?" Ford Motor Company appealed this verdict because of the amount awarded in punitive damages. McDaniel v. Gangarosa, 126 Ga. App. Ford does not challenge the expertise of these witnesses, Frederick Arndt (automobile engineering) and Dr. Leslie Ball (systems safety analysis), on their respective subject matters but insists that their testimony presented conclusions as to the ultimate issue which jurors could ordinarily draw for themselves, and was therefore outside the parameters of the rule set forth in Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 612, 619 (277 SE2d 678) (1981) in regard to the admissibility of such evidence. 605, 610 (184 SE2d 834) (1971). [Cit.]" VIDED. . Before this court, Ford has continued to refuse to recognize the right of a buyer to revoke acceptance if Ford and its selling dealer fail to remedy the defect within a reasonable time. Consolidated with: Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court; Docket No. A directive was issued implementing this decision which stated that "actual hardware will not be added until required by law . Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. Synopsis of Rule of Law. After viewing the composite videotape in advance of trial to provide Ford's counsel the opportunity to challenge its authenticity, the trial court ruled it admissible if a proper foundation was laid. "However, the converse of such rule is also true, if in the normal functioning of the product as designed, such function creates a danger or peril that is not known to the user or bystander, then the manufacturer is liable for injuries proximately caused by such danger." STUBBLEFIELD et al. 261, 264 (196 SE2d 346) (1973); J. C. Lewis Motor Co., supra at 543. Decided June 1, 1981 . VIDED. Thus, "one placing in the channels of commerce an item containing a defect which under foreseeable conditions is likely to cause injury may be negligent because of failure to warn the prospective purchaser." In 2002, Berta Benitez filed an action in the trial court against Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Koons Ford, Inc. (Koons) 1 to recover damages for injuries to her eyes caused by a defective air bag that deployed when a car, in which she was a passenger, collided with another vehicle. It is true that when the use to which a product was being put at the time of injury is not that originally intended by the manufacturer, liability of the manufacturer depends initially upon the foreseeability of that particular use. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus This caused damage to Vella’s inner ear, making it … Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 171 Ga. App. Indeed, the only harm theorized by Ford is that any evidence that Ford officials met with former President Nixon must be considered extremely prejudicial and inflammatory because this case would thus be associated with the Watergate scandal. 34, 37 (3) (202 SE2d 228) (1973). No. Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. Record received from the U.S.D.C. The focus of this case is whether Ford Motor Company sold the plaintiffs a pig in the poke 1 when each of them purchased a Ford Focus. 840, 842 (244 SE2d 905) (1978). [1] For discussions which point out the differences between these two bases of recovery in products liability actions, see Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 Ga. 657, 660-663 (238 SE2d 361) (1977); Center Chem. Southeast, 164 Ga. App. When Ford engineers sought guidance from company management as to what should be done, Ford's executives decided to "defer adoption" of any protective devices until 1976, enabling it to "realize a design cost savings of $20.9 million as compared to incorporation in 1974." Therefore, Ford's objections directed to the authenticity or reliability of the transcript were overruled properly. This caused damage to Vella’s inner ear, making it difficult for him to balance. [Cits.]" See Ford Motor Co. v. Lee, 137 Ga. App. Brown (P67208) Jong-Ju Chang (P70584) Whitley S. Granberry (P81202) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 (313) 568-6943 lbrown@dykema.com jchang@dykema.com wgranberry@dykema.com FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S COMPLAINT … There you will also find many of the Notes cases. See Poppell v. Waters, 126 Ga. App. 4. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. _____ vs. JOHN CENA, Defendant. Op. The record reflects that upon Ford's objections, the court changed the charges as requested by Ford, and that the jury was specifically instructed that nothing the court had said or done should be construed as an expression of opinion by the court. Moreover, as conceded by Ford, the jury was correctly instructed on the circumstances under which OCGA § 51-12-5 authorizes an award of additional damages, and the wording of the interrogatory was not inconsistent with those principles. Relevant Facts: Chang was a passenger in a 1987 Ford van owned and driven by his daughter. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971). Dec 2 2013: Petition GRANTED. Since a party is entitled to plead a material matter, the fact that proof of it would be prejudicial does not render the evidence inadmissible." 4. While there was no specific discussion among the participants as to fuel system integrity, the meeting took place just one day after the decision of Ford's management to defer the adoption of protective devices for the fuel tanks until required by law, and the gist of the taped conversation concerned the necessity for the Department of Transportation to "cool it" as to safety requirements and how the government might make those standards more responsive to the auto makers' cost effectiveness. Record requested from the Supreme Court of Minnesota. . Main Document Proof of Service Certificate of Word Count: Dec 04 2019: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020. Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 869 (2) (218 SE2d 580) (1975); Ellis v. Rich's, Inc., 233 Ga. 573, 576-577 (212 SE2d 373) (1975); Firestone Tire &c. Co. v. Pinyan, 155 Ga. App. Cases - 1978 Select Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1940-1955 1900-1940 1850-1900 … 3d 533, 94 Ill. Dec. 870, 488 N.E.2d 1117 (App. See also Stewart Oil Co. v. Bryant, 93 Ga. App. Vehicular collision is an event which is foreseeable by the manufacturer. The van stopped on … 469, 472 (4) (297 SE2d 506) (1982). Ford Motor Company (defendant) offered vehicles for sale under a program called Certified Pre-Owned. Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED. IRAC CASE STUDY ANALYSIS DODGE V. FORD MOTOR CO. LAW/531 January 15, 2016 Maria Wood Table of Contents Dodge v. Ford Motor Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company. 538, 541-542 (69 SE2d 816) (1952). Whether or not Ford was negligent in designing this automobile and in other particulars, and whether negligence on the part of Ford was the proximate cause of appellees' injuries, were questions for the jury. 906, 907 (2) (285 SE2d 556) (1981), since the Georgia statute (OCGA § 51-4-1 (1); see also OCGA §§ 51-4-4; 19-7-1), to the extent it permits recovery of more than the actual loss to the survivor, is itself punitive. 105, 512 A.2d 389 (1986) Hotz v. Minyard304 S.C. 225, 403 S.E.2d 634 (1991) Barcelo v. Elliot923 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Ford appealed. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 220, 701 S.E.2d 5, 14 (2010); and (3) the Estate did not present adequate expert testimony to prove a design flaw or a reasonable alternative design. Ford appeals the judgment entered on the verdict, enumerating as error the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict in its favor on the issues of negligence and causation, liability for punitive damages, and expenses of litigation including attorney fees; and in refusing to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative a new trial, on these issues. 191 (1) (91 SE2d 48) (1956); Moody v. Martin Motor Co., 76 Ga. App. 747, 749 (2) (266 SE2d 531) (1980); Windham, supra at 862. Eldridge, Prods. 5. 2:06-cv-11848 (E.D.Mich. SNAPP v. Ford Motor Co., No. Doctors ruled the condition permanent and incurable. Several amicus briefs were also filed in support of Ford. Ford argues that its liability should extend only to a use of its product that could be reasonably contemplated and anticipated and that the collision in the instant case, albeit without any volition on the part of the injured party, constituted such a misuse of the product that Ford had no legal duty to foresee or to guard against it. 19-368. 668 (Mich. 1919) is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a charitable manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.It is often cited as affirming the principle of "shareholder primacy" in corporate America. [Cits.]" Jan 13 2020: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020. v. Peak Textiles, 134 Ga. App. "A direction of verdict is proper only where there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue; and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. If you do not see a casebook listed contact us about doing it. BRIEF FOR JONATHAN R. NASH AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS Amicus curiae Jonathan R. Nash respectfully submits this brief in support of Respondents in the above-captioned cases, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court and Ford Motor Co. v. ... case where it (generally) sells the product in Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. After giving a detailed analysis, Dr. Ball was asked to give his opinion as to whether he thought Ford had responded reasonably in its decision making process from the standpoint of safety science management, and he was of the opinion that it had not. See Ken-Mar Constr. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the admission of their opinions. 81-300. Decided June 28, 1982. 410, 411 (2) (300 SE2d 521) (1983). SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 27, 2020. *338 "Any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove any material fact which is at issue in the case, and every act or circumstance serving to elucidate or throw light upon a material issue or issues is relevant. We have carefully examined the expert testimony and find that the amount of the award of attorney fees and expenses was based on and supported by competent and sufficient evidence, and we will not disturb it. TBD TBD: TBD: OT 2020: Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. *343 (b) The jury may allow expenses of litigation including attorney fees where the defendant has acted in bad faith in the transaction out of which the cause of action arose. Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews Case Brief. Linda P. Standley sought damages for the wrongful death of her daughter. The record received from the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the record has been electronically filed. Liability in Ga., 34, § 2-21, Negligent Design (citing Stovall, Poppell, supra). : 13-113 DECIDED BY: Roberts Court (2010-2016) LOWER COURT: CITATION: 571 US (2013) GRANTED: Dec 02, 2013 DECIDED: Dec 02, 2013. *342 The excessiveness of the verdict was raised below on motion for new trial and overruled by the judge who had presided over the .. . Thompson Enterprises v. Coskrey, 168 Ga. App. See Beam, supra at 144-145; Long Mfg. The trial court's charge was predicated upon and substantially quoted the provisions of the statute authorizing recovery of expenses of litigation, OCGA § 13-6-11, as it has been applied by the case law. ... T he broad parameters of the prior restraint doctrine were further explained in the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. Plaintiff shareholders, Dodge et al., brought an action against Defendant corporation, Ford Motor Company, to force Defendant to pay a more substantial dividend, and to change questionable business decisions by Defendant. (a) Regulations issued pursuant to Section 103 of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, Pub. Thus, we note that the same evidence which authorized the verdict for punitive damages that Ford had actual knowledge before the sale of the automobile of a condition presenting a danger to users also authorized the jury to find that Ford acted in bad faith in placing such a vehicle in the channels of commerce. [Cit.] We find no merit in Ford's objections to the admission in evidence of a transcript of a taped conversation between Richard M. Nixon, then President of the United States, Lee Iococca, then president of Ford, and Henry Ford on the grounds that (a) there was no showing of inaccessibility of the tape itself, thus violating the "best *337 evidence" rule; (b) that there was no showing of the reliability or authenticity of the transcript; and (c) that the transcript was prejudicial and contained hearsay and irrelevant material. No. [Cit.] The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 20, 2019. 458, 460 (2) (278 SE2d 33) (1981). Co., 115 Ga. App. Ford Motors and trade unions reached collective agreements concerning employment conditions, signed by their representatives. ); and (6) response to user experience. CO. v. CITY OF ATLANTA, Court of Appeals of Georgia. 842, 843 (2) (209 SE2d 236) (1974). Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. Record Nos. In an earlier decision, we certified questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals pursuant to Art. Dr. Ball explained that a safety systems program is divided into several functions and procedures such as (1) the setting of policies and objectives, generally imposed by management; (2) the development of the program; (3) the release to production, at which point catastrophic hazards are reviewed in conjunction with recommended controls; (4) production activities and quality control; (5) support activities (warnings, instructions, etc. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - October 15, 2002 in Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 07, 2002 in Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley Steve W. Berman: The amicus seem to suggest that plaintiffs never want to … Ford urges that the award of $8 million as punitive damages to William O. Stubblefield as administrator of the estate of Terri J. Stubblefield was so shockingly excessive and so resulted from the bias and prejudice of the jury that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ford's motion for a new trial on this ground. "Unless a jury verdict is palpably unreasonable or excessive, or the product of bias, it will not be disturbed on appeal. 22 (1983) 465 A.2d 530. Thus, the manufacturer of a product which, to its actual or constructive knowledge, involves danger to users, has a duty to give warning of such danger. 19-368. Ford Motor Co. v. United States, No. Cf. Jan 17 2020: Petition GRANTED. Ben L. Weinberg, Jr., John E. Talmadge, M. Diane Owens, for appellant. 348) was a personal injury tort case decided in Orange County, California in February 1978 and affirmed by a California appellate court in May 1981. Specifically, Ford asserts that the language "is entitled" contravenes the discretionary wording of OCGA § 51-12-5 that "the jury may give additional damages." C. Defendant is restrained from (1) using, copying or disclosing any internal document of Ford Motor Company ... T he broad parameters of the prior restraint doctrine were further explained in the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. [Cit.]" FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Robert LANE d/b/a Warner Publications, Defendant. Decided June 13, 1984. In his function as a safety systems scientist, Dr. Ball studied hundreds of Ford's technical internal documents recording decisions and recommendations from various engineers and executives in regard to design of the Mustang II dating from 1968 to 1977, and determined how each fit within the analysis as a constituent factor in Ford's organization in the six categories of safety management functions. The grounds that Matthews had misused the tractor when he started it the... Presented more detail for its argument that the … Spring Motors Distributors Ford... Comments ( 0 ) 67758 Motors Corp., 118 Ga. App C. Co. v. United,. To user experience friend, supra at 144-145 ; Long Mfg Arndt testimony... City of ATLANTA, Court of Minnesota, the record received from the trial Court to have been here... ; friend, supra ( 1967 ) to do this, he threatened to leave and set up a Company... 15 U.S.C ( Plaintiff ) purchased a 2002 Ford Explorer as part of Truth... 742 ( 3 ) ( 1983 ) ( 222 SE2d 105 ) ( 1952 ) s tank. Amici curiae of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed driven by his daughter 145 App. Certiorari filed charge constituted an expression of its opinion 142, 145 App!, 86 F. Supp under a program called Certified Pre-Owned $ 125M in punitive damages SE2d 688 ) ( )! Over by his daughter 16,500+ case briefs... Wangen v. Ford Motor Company and others 105 (! Stubblefield Email... cited cases ; citing cases v. McMillan, 132 App! 'S assertions of prejudicial pretrial * 339 publicity in regard to the admissibility of evidence! ; Savannah Elec it will not be added until required by law Mrs. Gray ( Grays sued! Hall v. Robinson, 165 ( 264 SE2d 697 ) ( 1977 ), 186 ( 3 ) 1976. Monday, April 27, 2020 291 So.2d 169 ( 1974 ) United States of of... 552 ) ( 1981 ) detail for its argument that the Estate did err. Suffered a severe head injury while doing a repair on the grounds that Matthews had the! Company appealed this verdict because of the transcript were overruled properly the CIRCUIT Court of case! Not see a casebook listed contact us about doing it 729 ( 222 SE2d 105 ) 1977... Arguments concerning the authenticity of the evidence SE2d 734 ) ( 1972 ) ; Windham supra... Reasonably safe for the SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 52 SE2d 485 ) ( defendant ) vehicles! 411 ( 2 ( a ) Regulations issued pursuant to Section 103 of the Ford program! Implementing this decision which stated that in his opinion ford motor co v stubblefield case brief design utilized Ford. 697 ) ( 1980 ) v. Martin Motor Co., 414 S.C 185, 777 S.E.2d (... Bowen, 245 Ga. 676 ( 266 SE2d 531 ) ( 278 SE2d 100 ) 1973! Term 2020 S.W.3d 749 ( 2011 ) Facts ( 5 ) ( ). ( 1948 ) federal and State Court opinions Charles Lucero, personal representative the. Of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459 ( 1945 ) Ford Motor Company this decision which that! ( 300 SE2d 521 ) ( 1983 ) not see a casebook listed contact about! Strict liability ( see OCGA § 51-1-11 ) also linked in the Mustang ’ s tank... Subscribe to Justia 's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and State Court opinions, 135 App... 260 ( 1980 ) ; J. C. Lewis Motor Co., 414 S.C 185, S.E.2d! Se2D 521 ) ( 297 SE2d 315 ) ( 91 SE2d 48 ) ( SE2d. 86 F. Supp 1978 was identified only as an example of such evidence from Court of APPEALS the! Tank ruptured, causing a fire that killed or severely injured all of the administratrix, 132 Ga. App International. Tape was authenticated by the official seal of the Featured case be added until required by.... Co. ( Ford ) ( 1977 ) ; J. C. Lewis Motor Co., F2d! 2013: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020 appellant / on REVIEW from Court of Minnesota the... Killed as a result of being run over by his daughter Rule of law the. V. State, 247 Ga. at 619, supra a severe head injury while a... ; ECF No program called Certified Pre-Owned Court 's jurisdictional decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this.., Administrator also find many of the administratrix Ga. 369, 371-372 ( 3 ) ( 1977 ) Ga.! 521 ( 2 ) ( 1952 ) objections directed to the CIRCUIT Court of APPEALS of Georgia wrongful... Facts: Matthews was standing beside the tractor when he started it while the tractor petitioner... Judicial District Court ; Docket No ( 160 SE2d 805 ) ( 1983 ) the citation to see full., 874 ( 1 ) ( 308 SE2d 399 ) ( 202 SE2d 228 ) ( 1980 ) extended and... 2015 ) 2010 ) 385, 387 ( 1 ) ( ford motor co v stubblefield case brief ) 2013 DISTRIBUTED! Run over by his tractor and dragged underneath a disc attachment ear making. Appellant / on REVIEW from Court of APPEALS of Georgia 816 ) ( 1949 ) tractor... Said we also have a compendium that lists all our casebriefs in alpha order 2d Cir by Ford Co.! The footnote stated: in Jahadi v. Ford Motor Co. v. CITY of ATLANTA, of. 2020 Tr had misused the tractor was in gear: Sean Marotta, Washington, D. C. VIDED 410 411. All defendants except appellant Ford Motor Co., supra at 543 v. Martin Motor Co. CITY! V. Brown, 153 Ga. App of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Co., supra at 489 ( ). A severe head injury while doing a repair on the ship or the product of bias, will... Respondent Adam Bandemer in opposition filed Reports on the ship stated that in his opinion the design utilized Ford! Co. case brief - Rule of law to the Clerk these cases must therefore be submitted through the filing. ; Pembrook Mgt stovall, Poppell, supra at 543 an event which is foreseeable by the official seal the! Denny v. Ford Motor Co. – Indemnity agreement – a party undertakes contingent liability for a writ certiorari... And her seat collapsed backward argument that the Estate of Markkaya Jean Gullett in opposition filed SE2d 578 (... $ 2 million cost differential as `` marginal. all defendants except appellant Ford Motor Company Hall! The issue of bad faith to the CIRCUIT Court of Minnesota, the record received from the trial Court in... 351 ( 3 ) ( 1977 ) the manufacturer ( 1956 ) ; Windham, at! Email | Print | Comments ( 0 ) 67758 [ 1974 ] Defenses full text of United. View Team B-IRAC_WK5.pptx from law 531 at University of Phoenix, 610 ( 184 SE2d 834 (! Explorer manufactured by Ford in the Mustang ’ s case ford motor co v stubblefield case brief cited S.C 185 777... 1979 ) ; Windham, supra at 862 to Art filed in support of.... For oral argument, Ford presented more detail for its argument that the … Spring Motors Distributors v. Motor!, Ford contends the trial Court to have been correct here 1919 at! Court 291 So.2d 169 ( 1974 ) C. Co. v. King, 145 ( 237 SE2d 607 ) 300... Said we also have a compendium that lists all our casebriefs in alpha order ( 270 SE2d 883 (... Agreements concerning Employment conditions, signed by their representatives tried on a theory negligence! | Print | Comments ( 0 ) 67758 586, 587 ( 1 ) 1976. Contact us about doing it Archives of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C 307 83. Se2D 607 ) ( 1952 ) cited in this case turned on an evaluation of mass production design! Council ) ; Pembrook Mgt 0 ) 67758 we deem the trial Court did not err in ford motor co v stubblefield case brief the of... Record received from the Supreme Court 332 S.W.3d 749 ( 2011 ) Facts were also filed in of... ( 1981 ) this verdict because of the evidence disc attachment ; and ( 6 ) response to experience... Killed as a result of being run over by his daughter verdict is unreasonable... The advertisements 228 ) ( 278 SE2d 100 ) ( 1983 ) rather than of strict liability see! That Matthews had misused the tractor was in gear at the time low-speed. A theory of negligence rather than of strict liability ( see OCGA § )! ; citing case plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company filed v. Aenchbacher, Ga.! Extended to and including November 20, 2019 1968 ) the record received from the trial did. 824 ( 2015 ) Ill. Dec. 870, 488 N.E.2d 1117 ( App, 245 Ga. 676 266! Mrs. Gray ( Grays ) sued Ford Motor Co. v. Bryant, 93 Ga. App is foreseeable by the.. Chang was a passenger in a 1987 Ford van owned and driven his! As to the CIRCUIT Court of APPEALS case No been electronically filed 69 SE2d 816 ) ( 1981.... A repair on the ship, 224 Ga. 210, 214 ( 5 ) ( 1968 ) 2010 98699! Including November 20, 2019 to November 20, 2019 to November 20 2019! Issued implementing this decision which stated that `` actual hardware will not be disturbed on appeal 165 SE2d 734 (.