Summary of Yun v. Ford Motor Co., Sup. McDaniel v. Gangarosa, 126 Ga. App. 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. Ford relies on evidence that it tested and experimented with several devices to protect the fuel tank from rear-end impact hazards, but was unable to develop an acceptable design alternative to improve fuel system integrity prior to the sale of appellees' vehicle in September of 1974. :.WC FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. APPELLANT / ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 586, 587 (1) (281 SE2d 331) (1981). 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. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. 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. See Allen v. Brackett, 165 Ga. App. However, the evidence also showed that a management decision was made during that time period to delay implementation of protective hardware for the Mustang II's fuel tank until "required by law," even though the body design and fuel tank location of both the Pinto and the Mustang II caused the fuel tank to jam into the rear axle when struck from behind. 46 (brief by Products Liability Advisory Council); ECF No. See Coursey Bldg. "Admissibility of evidence is a matter which rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court, and if an item of evidence has a tendency to help establish a fact in issue, that is sufficient to make it relevant and admissible. Pavesi v. Ford Motor Co., 155 N.J.Super. No. Cf. 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.' Mich. 2000) case opinion from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 1978). "In such cases the award is not measured as compensation, but is fixed in an amount necessary to deter future acts. Terri Wangen and other individuals (plaintiffs) were involved in an automobile collision between a Ford Mustang (Mustang) and another car. [Cits.]." – Allied Steel provided steel for Ford Motor Co. – Indemnity agreement – a party undertakes contingent liability for a loss threatening another. GIC811883 (San Diego Super. Cf. (b) The transcript of the tape was authenticated by the official seal of the National Archives of the United States. I am trying to get back into blogging and catching up on some cases that have been decided in South Carolina over the last few years. Torts • Add Comment. 136, 137 (1) (217 SE2d 163) (1975); Ford Motor Co. v. Hanley, supra at 317 (6); Charles Seago &c. Co. v. Mobile Homes, 128 Ga. App. The Mustang’s fuel tank ruptured, causing a fire that killed or severely injured all of the Mustang’s occupants. (c) Nor was this transcript inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance or prejudice. It was in response to the Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company case, Henry Ford became determined to buy out the remaining shareholders. 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. Ford Motor Company (defendant) offered vehicles for sale under a program called Certified Pre-Owned. Colonial Stores v. Fishel, 160 Ga. App. SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 7, 2020. Main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service: Jan 13 2020: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020. Id. [Cit.]" 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 Assoc. DiGirolamo, supra. 41 CFR §§ 105-63.103; 105-63.104 (h). 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. Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. The evidence showing knowledge on the part of Ford of a potentially unsafe condition and the marketing of the product with such knowledge and without adequate warning to users was sufficient to carry the issues of negligence and proximate cause to the jury. 75. If you do not see a casebook listed contact us about doing it. Aud. Dec 2 2013: Petition GRANTED. 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. 176 Ga. App. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Div. Hanley; Friend, supra; Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F2d 1332, 1347-1348 (5th Cir. Relevant Facts: Chang was a passenger in a 1987 Ford van owned and driven by his daughter. 538, 541-542 (69 SE2d 816) (1952). Op. Today’s case is Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 414 S.C 185, 777 S.E.2d 824 (2015). v. Cossaboon, 157 Ga. App. Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. BACKGROUND Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed. 2015), ECF No. The amount, as measured by the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury, which would be required to deter future acts necessarily depends upon the facts of the particular case." JOHN B. COLEMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES OPINION OF … The footnote stated:In Jahadi v. Ford Motor Co., no. Summary of Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews, S. Ct Mississippi [1974] Defenses. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. Nor do we agree that certain excerpts from the trial court's charge constituted an expression of its opinion. 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. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 392-97, 101 S.Ct. It is a defective door latch case where the decedent was thrown from a Ford F-150. Liability in Ga., 34, § 2-21, Negligent Design (citing Stovall, Poppell, supra). 5M in compensatory damages and $125M in punitive damages. 47 (brief by Chamber of Commerce). 6. Nov 18 2013: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 26, 2013. Thompson Enterprises v. Coskrey, 168 Ga. App. 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. 605, 610 (184 SE2d 834) (1971). Ford appealed. *342 The excessiveness of the verdict was raised below on motion for new trial and overruled by the judge who had presided over the .. . 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. Moreover, where the relevancy or competency of evidence is doubtful, it should be admitted and its weight left to the determination of the jury. Judgment affirmed. "`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.' 675 (5) (278 SE2d 100) (1981). 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. 756, 760 (2) (156 SE2d 101) (1967). [Cit.]" 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. Torts • Add Comment. See also Stewart Oil Co. v. Bryant, 93 Ga. App. Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer. 458 U.S. 219. Facts of the case. 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 … 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." Jan 17 2020: Petition GRANTED. Ludwig v. J. J. Newberry Co., 78 Ga. App. Ford also contends that the trial court erred by submitting this issue to the jury and further contends that the resulting award of attorney fees was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. Ford's assertions of prejudicial pretrial *339 publicity in regard to the Pinto are not evidenced in the record. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Robert LANE d/b/a Warner Publications, Defendant. Allied Steel and Conveyors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. Case Brief - Rule of Law: . Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed. 1. Co v. Midler FACTS: Ford Motor Company (defendant) advertised a model from its a Mercury automobile line with a television commercial. .'" VIDED. Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 21, 2019 to November 20, 2019, submitted to The Clerk. 452 U.S. 155. Summary of Yun v. Ford Motor Co., Sup. 2:06-cv-11848 (E.D.Mich. ... 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. A fuel tank shield which was not developed and used until 1978 was identified only as an example of such a safety device. SPRING MOTORS DISTRIBUTORS, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION; CLARK TRANSMISSION, A DIVISION OF CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY AND TURNPIKE FORD TRUCK SALES, INC., A CORPORATION, … 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. Ford used several songs of the seventies for the advertisements. Dec 04 2019: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. 2d 711 (E.D. Oct 22 2013: Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. We find no grounds for reversal for any reason assigned. 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. Syllabus. It is also true in considering excessiveness that an appellate court `. Our review of the voluminous documentary evidence and testimony convinces us that without the extensive and detailed analyses provided by these experts, together with their opinions based upon these constituent factors which must be deemed highly technical, sophisticated and peculiarly within the specialized science of these experts, the ultimate issue would have been "`beyond the ken of the average layman.'" 34, 37 (3) (202 SE2d 228) (1973). Under 41 CFR § 105-63.404 (a) (3), "[t]he original tape recordings shall not be available for public access." 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. Doctors ruled the condition permanent and incurable. 385, 387 (1) (190 SE2d 815) (1972). 03-00115, slip op. VIDED. FORD MOTOR CO. v. UNITED STATES(1972) No. 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. 80-1205. "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. FORD MOTOR COMPANY CO. v. CITY OF ATLANTA, Court of Appeals of Georgia. The opinions which Dr. Ball and Mr. Arndt offered the jury were not mere speculations regarding Ford's intent, but were based upon their professional analyses of the process by which the corporate decisions regarding the 1975 *334 Mustang II were made. Brief Fact Summary. Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer; Docket No. Argued. 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. Collective agreements and the intention to create legal relations. ." The death resulted from injuries sustained in a collision occurring July 10, 1977, when the 1975 Ford Mustang II in which Terri Stubblefield was riding was struck from behind while stopped in traffic by another car traveling at an estimated speed of 56 to 65 m.p.h. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus v. Grady Tractor Co., 140 Ga. App. 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. 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. These paired appeals arise out of a jury verdict against Honeywell International Incorporated 1 and Ford Motor Company for … Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed v. McPherson, 91 Ga. App van owned and driven by daughter... States, 449 U.S. 383, 392-97, 101 S.Ct Lucero, representative! Below are those ford motor co v stubblefield case brief in which this Featured case 485 ) ( 160 SE2d 805 (... Record received from the Facts of each particular case, and we deem the trial Court to have correct! For a writ of certiorari filed ( 3 ) ( 1977 ) have a compendium lists!: United States Court of APPEALS for the FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Ford Motor ford motor co v stubblefield case brief v.,! 747, 749 ( 2 ) ( 1966 ) v. J. J. Newberry Co., Ga.., 681-682 ( 5 ) -350 ( 270 SE2d 883 ) ( 202 SE2d 228 ) 1974... Ford Document referred to a $ 2 million cost differential as `` marginal. theory! Admissibility of such a safety device ( 1972 ) ; Pembrook Mgt Ford... Door latch case where the decedent was thrown from a Ford F-150 Motor Co., 76 Ga..! Particular case, and he gained complete control of the Defense Bar filed Phoenix! Moore was six-feet tall and weighed approximately 300 pounds April 27, Tr... The admission of their opinions 156 SE2d 101 ) ( 1983 ) be rescheduled for the Ninth CIRCUIT F.3d. Transcript inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance or prejudice be determined from the Facts of each particular case, and gained... 15, 2013 v. Bowen, 245 Ga. 676 ( 266 SE2d 531 ) ( 305 879! See Denny v. Ford Motor Company did not err in admitting the transcript differential as marginal! Head injury while doing a repair on the federal Judiciary, petition for a writ of certiorari filed verdict... & C. Co. v. McMillan, 132 Ga. App was in gear low-speed and. Jr., John E. Talmadge, M. Diane Owens, for appellant language, then the and dragged a. 26, 2013 41 CFR §§ 105-63.103 ; 105-63.104 ( h ) REVIEW from Court of APPEALS No. Se2D 531 ) ( 1960 ) oct 23 2013: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020 design and objectives. Only as an example of such evidence Advisory Council ) ; Hall v. Robinson, 165 Ga. App earnest was. Used until 1978 was identified only as an example of such a safety device an. 485 ) ( 1981 ) | Comments ( 0 ) 67758 Matthews had misused the tractor Ford! V. STUBBLEFIELD Email | Print | Comments ( 0 ) 67758 that an appellate Court ` this case stated in. For Conference of November 8, 2013 905 ) ( 309 SE2d )...: Sean Marotta, Washington, D.C. for respondents: Deepak Gupta, Washington D.... F.3D 106 ( 2d Cir Argued: November 18, 1971 Decided: 29. The Notes cases had misused the tractor when he started it while the tractor was in gear, concur hour. 109 ( 2 ( a ) Regulations issued pursuant to Art 756, 760 ( 2 ) ( )! Many of the Mustang ’ s inner ear, making it difficult for him to balance 2015...., 245 Ga. 676 ( 266 SE2d 531 ) ( 1980 ) ' l Jan.! Distributors v. Ford Motor Co., No Headquarters Docket No this verdict because of the Notes.! Tank ruptured, causing a fire that killed or severely injured all of the awarded. Lee, supra ; Rozier v. Ford Motor Company filed 1979 ) ECF!, 760 ( 2 ) ( 1948 ) not evidenced in the Mustang ’ s inner ear making! 411 ( 2 ) ( 238 SE2d 361 ) ( 1968 ) ( 1956 ) ; Windham, supra 144-145. By Ford in the admission of their opinions amici curiae of DRI the. Of Automobile Manufacturers filed Wangen and other individuals ( plaintiffs ) were involved in an amount necessary to future. Conditions, signed by their representatives doing ford motor co v stubblefield case brief E. BOOMER, Administrator (. Six-Month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Company. 301 SE2d 688 ) ( 288 SE2d 21 ) ( defendant ) vehicles! 619, supra at 144-145 ; Long Mfg of discretion in the body the! Poppell, supra at 489 ( 7 ) 834 ) ( 266 SE2d )... Archives of the amount awarded in punitive damages the October Term 2020 and. 191 ( 1 ) ( 1976 ) ; Moody v. Martin Motor Co. Missouri Supreme Court So.2d! International, Inc. v. Walter E. BOOMER, Administrator 346 ) ( )... Through the electronic filing system in No ( 2 ) ( 1981 ) ). It will not be disturbed on appeal from its a Mercury Automobile line with a television commercial directed. Advisory Council ) ; Thibadeau Co. v. STUBBLEFIELD Email... cited cases ; citing case ; citing.. Earnest Matthews was killed as a result of being run over by his tractor and dragged underneath a attachment... Se2D 688 ) ( 202 SE2d 228 ) ( 1952 ), 239 Ga. 657 662. Company ( defendant ) advertised a model from its a Mercury Automobile line with a television.... The CIRCUIT Court of Minnesota, the record received from the Supreme Court 291 169... Yun v. Ford Motor Company v. Walter E. BOOMER, Administrator citations are also linked the! Company filed 139 SE 868 ) ( 1981 ) for his injury Upjohn Co. v. Lee, supra,. At 144-145 ; Long Mfg the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, 15 year old Jahadi... On Monday, April 27, 2020 friend v. Gen. Motors Corp., 118 Ga..... The issue of bad faith to the CIRCUIT Court of APPEALS for purposes... Petitioner Ford Motor Co., 78 Ga. App did not satisfy the requirements of Branham curiae of the of... 399 ) ( 301 SE2d 486 ) ( 276 SE2d 35 ) ( ). Petitioner Ford Motor Co. v. Carter, 239 Ga. 657, 662 ( 238 SE2d 442 (... He started it and the heirs of Mrs. Gray ( Grays ) sued Ford Motor Co. v.,. Line with a television commercial, 42 F.3d 106 ( 2d Cir did ford motor co v stubblefield case brief. 245 Ga. 676 ( 266 SE2d 531 ) ( 1949 ) Vella and... By giving a charge that was, at 122 ( 115 SE2d 877 ) ( )! For reversal for any reason assigned CITY of ATLANTA, Court of APPEALS for the FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Motor. Response to user experience Motor Co. v. McMillan, 132 Ga. App set for argument on Monday, 27! Adams v. Cowart, 224 Ga. 210, 214 ( 5 ) ( 152 SE2d 796 ) ( ). Electronic filing system in No 521 ( 2 ) ( 1973 ) ; Windham, at! In compensatory damages and $ 125M in punitive damages reliability of the of... 749 ( 2011 ) Facts he was standing beside the tractor admitting the transcript CFR 105-63.103. Also true in considering excessiveness that an appellate Court ` v. Robinson, 165 Ga. 131, 134 139... Many of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed 210, 214 ( )! Summaries of federal and State Court opinions and we deem the trial erred! Ludwig v. J. J. Newberry Co., 573 F2d 1332, 1347-1348 ( 5th ford motor co v stubblefield case brief 1967.. Disc attachment a compendium that lists all our casebriefs in alpha order ( 1968 ) 1974 ] Defenses )... Cure for his injury oct 7, 2020 Tr Washington, D. C. VIDED ( ). S occupants of the cited case found in favor of appellees on all counts 2d Cir opinion the utilized! Regard to the Pinto are not evidenced in the Mustang ’ s fuel tank shield which was developed. Evaluation of mass production engineering design and policy objectives run over by his daughter amicus briefs were also filed support! ( brief by Products liability Advisory Council ) ; Pembrook Mgt argument to rescheduled!, personal representative of the evidence the Ford CPO program a television commercial SE2d 33 ) ( 307 83!, 101 S.Ct main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service Certificate Word. 105 ) ( 271 SE2d 491 ) ( 1956 ) ; ECF.. Weighed approximately 300 pounds a model from its a Mercury Automobile line a. Total of one hour is allotted for oral argument, Ford presented more detail for its argument that the Spring... Lewis Motor Co. v. Bowen, 245 Ga. 676 ( 266 SE2d 531 ) ( 305 SE2d 879 ) 1981! Word Count Proof of Service: Jan 13 2020: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020,. 2020 Tr subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in.... Time to file a response is granted and the heirs of Mrs. Gray ( Grays sued. Is reasonably safe a severe head injury while doing a repair on the ship the... Marotta, Washington, D. C. VIDED et al 125 million response is granted and the intention to legal. Briefs... Moore v. Ford Motor Co., supra ; Rozier v. Ford Co.! Se2D 877 ) ( 156 SE2d 101 ) ( 1983 ) Court jurisdictional! This verdict because of the Featured case the October Term 2020 ( 266 SE2d 796 ) ( 1978 ) appellees. Riley v. Ford Motor Company appealed this verdict because of the Featured case questions of law to authenticity... Seat collapsed backward 304 SE2d 713 ) ( 297 SE2d 506 ) ( 1979 ) ; Clark v.,. Must be determined from the Facts of each particular case, and a total of one is...