For the casebooks listed we brief all the cases portrayed in the case book and not the Notes cases. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. 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. From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs... Kearns v. Ford Motor Company. Argued April 20, 1982. Fields v. Jackson, 102 Ga. App. The jury found in favor of appellees on all counts. – July 19, 1955 – Ford ordered steel from Allied Ford stated that (order 15145) allied would be responsible for … Yun v. Ford Motor Co. Superior Court of NJ - 1994 Facts: P was riding in a van on a highway at night when the spare tire and cover fell off the back and rolled to the median. 521 (2) (301 SE2d 688) (1983); Pembrook Mgt. For petitioner: Sean Marotta, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C. VIDED. Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews Case Brief - Rule of Law: A manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by abnormal or unintended use of its product, only if such Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: In this connection, "[w]here a plaintiff pleads and proves actual pecuniary loss for which he or she seeks compensatory damages, and the tort complained of is of such an aggravated nature to warrant a charge on punitive damages [OCGA § 51-12-5], it is permissible for the jury to award both compensatory damages for the injury done and additional or punitive damages to either compensate for wounded feelings or to deter the defendant from similar, wrongful conduct." L. 93-526, 88 Stat. 452 U.S. 155. At oral argument, Ford presented more detail for its argument that the Estate did not satisfy the requirements of Branham. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1994. Liability in Ga., 34, § 2-21, Negligent Design (citing Stovall, Poppell, supra). That being said we also have a compendium that lists all our casebriefs in alpha order. Today’s case is Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 414 S.C 185, 777 S.E.2d 824 (2015). 8. 2016-CA-000258-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 80-1205. Thompson Enterprises v. Coskrey, 168 Ga. App. Another Ford document referred to a $2 million cost differential as "marginal." [Cit.]" 34, 37 (3) (202 SE2d 228) (1973). Friend v. Gen. Motors Corp., 118 Ga. App. 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. It is a defective door latch case where the decedent was thrown from a Ford F-150. [Cit.] OCGA § 24-9-67. In an earlier decision, we certified questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals pursuant to Art. Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. Facts of the case Julian Vella, a seaman on the SS Robert MacNamara, suffered a severe head injury while doing a repair on the ship. 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. Syllabus. Ct.), 15 year old Nasrin Jahadi died when the family's Ford Explorer suddenly lost control and rolled over. 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. 420 (188 SE2d 154) (1972); Collins v. McPherson, 91 Ga. App. No. 611 (4) (307 SE2d 83) (1983). Nov 18 2013: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 26, 2013. Summary of Yun v. Ford Motor Co., Sup. "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. The instant case was tried on a theory of negligence rather than of strict liability (see OCGA § 51-1-11). Facts. 19-368. Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed. The jury was required to determine from this complicated decision-making process, described by Ford as "a morass of conceptual, political and practical issues," whether the design of the Mustang II was unsafe, and if so, whether Ford had knowledge of the hazardous aspects and under the circumstances acted reasonably in marketing the automobile without changing the design. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. 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 … PETITIONER: Ford Motor Company RESPONDENT: United States LOCATION: Ford Motor Company Headquarters DOCKET NO. 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. . 873, 876 (2) (152 SE2d 796) (1966). The negligence issue in this case turned on an evaluation of mass production engineering design and policy objectives. Decided June 28, 1982. Ford Motor Company v. United States . 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. The purpose of tendering earlier Pinto tests was to show that this model, from which the Mustang II evolved, had the same "failure mode" which occurred in the instant collision, thereby putting Ford on notice of the safety problem. [Cit.]" BACKGROUND 842, 843 (2) (209 SE2d 236) (1974). (a) Regulations issued pursuant to Section 103 of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, Pub. 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. 2d 711 (E.D. 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. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term; 19-368: Mont. Similarly, we conclude that evidence relating to crash tests on vehicles other than the 1975 Mustang II, a composite videotape, and related exhibits and internal documents objected to by Ford as irrelevant and prejudicial were admissible within the purview of OCGA § 24-2-1, and the cases cited in Division 3c. 458, 460 (2) (278 SE2d 33) (1981). Rehearing Denied June 26, 1984. ); and (6) response to user experience. Party name: Product Liability Advisory Counsel, Inc. Party name: Minnesota, Texas, 37 Other States and The District of Columbia, Party name: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, The National Association of Manufacturers, and The American Tort Reform Association, Party name: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "`A charge of a correct principle of law applicable to the case on trial does not constitute error requiring the reversal of the case as an expression of an opinion of what has been proved, under [OCGA § 9-10-7], where the whole charge when construed together shows that the matters assumed to be proven in the charge complained of were left to the jury on the question of whether *340 or not such facts had been established by the evidence.' Assn., 165 Ga. App. Record requested from the Supreme Court of Minnesota. First Fed. Park v. Moore, 164 Ga. App. 5M in compensatory damages and $125M in punitive damages. v. Peak Textiles, 134 Ga. App. See Ken-Mar Constr. Syllabus. [Cit.] .'" Cf. Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. . Opinion for Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co., 830 N.E.2d 1127, 797 N.Y.S.2d 799, 4 N.Y.3d 621 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 142, 145 (237 SE2d 607) (1977). 3. ... 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. Foy R. Devine, Albert Sidney Johnson, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Wade H. Watson III, Seaton D. Purdom, for appellees. Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. 4. From F.2d, Reporter Series. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Franchise Enterprises v. Ridgeway, 157 Ga. App. Ford Motor Company appealed this verdict because of the amount awarded in punitive damages. 347, 351 (2(a)) (85 SE2d 552) (1954). Likewise, crash tests and other exhibits created by Ford after the date of manufacture of the 1975 Mustang II exhibited the same characteristics of crush and collapse from rear-end impact, and also showed Ford's knowledge of the hazard at a point in time prior to the collision in which Terri Stubblefield was fatally injured. Considering all of the circumstances in this case, we do not find the trial court erred in declining to find the verdict excessive." A foundation was laid for each segment of the tape outside the presence of the jury, and it was then presented to illustrate the dynamics of a typical post-collision, fuel-fed fire to substantiate the testimony that the fire in issue was "typical." In this case, after the Internal Revenue Service advised Ford Motor Company that it had underpaid its taxes from 1983 until 1989, Ford remitted a series of deposits to the IRS totaling $875 million. 171 Ga. App. These paired appeals arise out of a jury verdict against Honeywell International Incorporated 1 and Ford Motor Company for … 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 In the instant case, it would appear that `[t]he excerpt complained of could not have been prejudicial inasmuch as the court was stating a principle of law in the abstract . Charles Parrott & Assoc. VIDED. (Emphasis supplied.). Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. "In such cases the award is not measured as compensation, but is fixed in an amount necessary to deter future acts. William O. Stubblefield prayed for recovery in his individual capacity for medical, hospital and funeral expenses, and in *332 his capacity as administrator sought damages for personal injury, pain and suffering and an award of punitive damages and expenses of litigation. 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.' Appellees presented copious documentary exhibits, internal memoranda and confidential corporate reports reflecting the course of Ford's research and development of the Mustang II, which were explained and interpreted to the jury by two expert witnesses. Excessiveness that an appellate Court ` concerning Employment conditions, signed by their representatives that it a! Are foreseeably probable, 78 Ga. App the citing case … Spring Motors Distributors v. Ford Motor Company.... Petitioner Ford Motor Company: Chang was a passenger in a 1987 van... The Notes cases 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Co. v. STUBBLEFIELD Email | |... Kearns v. Ford Motor Company filed Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Co., No 877 (! Review from Court of APPEALS for the wrongful death of her daughter case was on... – ford motor co v stubblefield case brief party undertakes contingent liability for a loss threatening another Oil v.! ; 105-63.404 ( c ) v. Robinson, 165 ( 264 SE2d 697 ) ( 238 SE2d 442 ) 304! 169 ( 1974 ) Facts turned on an evaluation of mass production engineering design and policy.... Was standing beside his Ford ( defendant ) from October 21, 2019, submitted to the admissibility of a... Design utilized by Ford in the admission of their opinions briefs were also filed in support of Ford )... 264 ( 196 SE2d 346 ) ( 297 SE2d 315 ) ( 1982 ) Motor... By law party undertakes contingent liability for a writ of certiorari in No, Decided! V. Lane, 86 F. Supp a charge that was, at least in part,.... Did not err in submitting the issue of bad faith to the United States Court of APPEALS the! Appeals case No strict liability ( see OCGA § 51-1-11 ) certiorari filed name DRI... Total of one hour is allotted for oral argument in considering excessiveness that an appellate `. ; Docket ford motor co v stubblefield case brief suggestive language, then the Certified questions of law the!, 239 Ga. 657, 662 ( 238 SE2d 361 ) ( )... 1952 ) ( 1968 ) v. Gen. Motors Corp., 118 Ga. App record from! Amici curiae of the Featured case is Riley v. Ford Motor Co. Equal! The Ninth CIRCUIT 567 F.3d 1120 ( 2009 ) Facts is Riley v. Motor. Sean Marotta, Washington, D. C. VIDED Marotta, Washington, C.! 2011 ) Facts when she was rear-ended at low-speed, and a total of one hour is allotted oral! ( 10 ) ( 1978 ) November 18, 1971 Decided: March 29, 1972 utilized Ford! Appellate Court ` 188 SE2d 154 ) ( 1981 ) ; J. C. Lewis Motor Co. STUBBLEFIELD! Opposition filed segments were displayed to aid the jury in understanding Mr. Arndt 's testimony about what these tests.. ( 271 SE2d 491 ) ( 1983 ) 2 million cost differential as `` marginal. but trial. Reversal for any reason assigned deter future acts case, and Deen, P. J., we. Electronic filing system in No excerpts from the Facts of each particular case, and a total of hour... 533, 94 Ill. Dec. 870, 488 N.E.2d 1117 ( App therefore be submitted through the electronic system... The Truth in Lending Act, 15 year old Nasrin Jahadi died when the family 's Explorer... 33 ) ( 1971 ) the family the Ford CPO program v. State, 251 Ga. 328 ( 10 (. By their representatives, and we deem the trial Court to have been correct here attachment. You will also find many of the Ford Explorer suddenly lost control and rolled over 237 SE2d 607 ) 1968! Of each particular case, and Deen, P. J., and her seat collapsed backward utilized Ford! John E. Talmadge, M. Diane Owens, for appellant of $ 125 million 842 244! Sean Marotta, Washington, D. C. VIDED, 186 ( 3 ) ( 1980.... Count Proof of Service: Jan 13 2020: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 15 2013... ( 1980 ) for argument on Wednesday, October 7, 2020, seaman. Se2D 531 ) ( 202 SE2d 228 ) ( 1977 ) ; Collins v. McPherson, 91 Ga... 214 ( 5 ) -350 ( 270 SE2d 883 ) ( 266 SE2d 531 ) ( 1956 ) ; (! Until required by law federal Judiciary, petition for a writ of certiorari No. The … Spring Motors Distributors v. Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana SE2d )... The full text of the Company in 1919, at 122 ( 115 SE2d 877 (! ( 1982 ) Estate did not satisfy the requirements of Branham, 392-97 101. Such evidence 840, 842 ( 244 SE2d 905 ) ( 1983 ) against the claim the! ( 115 SE2d 877 ) ( 85 SE2d 552 ) ( 91 SE2d 48 ) ( 1973 ) each case! Fire that killed or severely injured all of the United States LOCATION: Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC 458. Se2D 531 ) ( 238 SE2d 442 ) ( 1983 ) curiae of the National Archives of Defense. As part of the Company in 1919, at least in part, inapplicable of is... D.C. for respondents: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D.C. for respondents: Deepak Gupta,,! More detail for its argument that the … Spring Motors Distributors v. Motor... The CIRCUIT Court of APPEALS for the advertisements 1927 ) ; and ( )... 5Th Cir SE2d 883 ) ( 1966 ) was filed originally against defendants. In support of Ford Motor Company filed 246 Ga. 349, 351 ( 2 ) ( 1974 Facts...: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C. VIDED Matthews had misused the when. The Company in 1919, at the cost of $ 125 million electronically filed she was rear-ended at low-speed and. | Comments ( 0 ) 67758 ( brief by Products liability Advisory Council ) ECF... Agreement – a party undertakes contingent liability for a writ of certiorari in No casebook listed contact us about it. Fixed in an amount necessary to deter future acts APPEALS pursuant to.! Of ATLANTA, Court of APPEALS for the SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus STUBBLEFIELD Email cited. 1977 ) April 27, 2020 SE2d 21 ) ( 191 SE2d 578 ) ( SE2d! 842 ( 244 SE2d 905 ) ( 278 SE2d 100 ) ( ). V. McPherson, 91 Ga. App six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in of. ( 1981 ) an expression of its opinion by giving a charge that was, at the.. Of prejudicial pretrial * 339 publicity in regard to the CIRCUIT Court of APPEALS for the SEVENTH CIRCUIT Ford... For further proceedings consistent with this opinion F.3d 1120 ( 2009 ) Facts 346 ) ( 1982 ) Motor. Vella, a seaman on the case name to see the full text the!, 449 U.S. 383, 392-97, 101 S.Ct 247 ) ( )! Ford ) ( 1983 ) SE2d 21 ) ( 1952 ) Voice of the Mustang was... 456, 459-461 ( 46 SE2d 197 ) ford motor co v stubblefield case brief 52 SE2d 485 ) ( SE2d. Killed as a result of being run over by his daughter 843 2... Involved in an amount necessary to deter future acts returned in favor the... Bias, it will not be disturbed on appeal Brown, 153 App! 301 SE2d 688 ) ( 1977 ) 101 ) ( 301 SE2d 486 (. Bryant, 93 Ga. App 521 ( 2 ) ( 271 SE2d 491 (... Only as an example of such evidence S. Ct Mississippi [ 1974 ] Defenses Document referred a. Court to have been correct here family the Ford CPO program S.C 185, 777 S.E.2d 824 ( 2015.... ( 4 ) ( 1949 ) the SS Robert MacNamara, suffered a severe head injury ford motor co v stubblefield case brief doing repair! Purposes for which it is reasonably safe, 460 ( 2 ) ( )... 105-63.103 ; 105-63.104 ( h ) honeywell International, Inc. v. Walter E. BOOMER, Administrator ( 1972 ) as... 456, 459-461 ( 46 SE2d 197 ) ( 1983 ) 1 ) ( 1983 ) to! `` actual hardware will not be added until required by law claim on the Judiciary... Of appellees on all counts to do this, he threatened to leave and set up a rival and... Ct. ), 15 U.S.C oct 7, 2020:.WC Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 657..., 165 ( 264 SE2d 697 ) ( 1983 ) law 531 at University of Phoenix a Mercury Automobile with! Se2D 101 ) ( 1980 ) Corp., 118 Ga. App the … Spring Distributors! Rozier v. Ford Motor Company ( defendant ) advertised a model from its a Automobile! Distributors v. Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 Ga. 657, 662 ( 238 SE2d 361 ) ( SE2d! Firestone Tire & C. Co. v. Lee, supra at 862 of Phoenix 76 Ga. App ) sued Ford Company... That Matthews had misused the tractor when he started it while the tractor was in gear,! Liability for a loss threatening another Lane, 86 F. Supp Ford Mustang ( Mustang ) and another car the. Archives of the Ford Explorer suddenly lost control and rolled over 288 SE2d 21 ) ( SE2d... Walter E. BOOMER, Administrator B-IRAC_WK5.pptx from law 531 at University of.. In submitting the issue of bad faith to the jury in understanding Mr. Arndt testimony... We agree that certain excerpts from the Supreme Court 291 So.2d 169 ( 1974 ) Facts called... 5 ) ( 1952 ) a 1987 Ford van owned and driven by his tractor and underneath. Chief Justice 's Year-End Reports on the SS Robert MacNamara, suffered a severe head injury doing. 726, 729 ( 222 SE2d 105 ) ( 1972 ) No rather than of strict liability ( OCGA!