Ford Motor Company Liability Claim

In the case of Branham v. Ford Motor Co., the Plaintiff brought the case against Hale, the driver, and Ford because the company failed to test the seat-belt sleeve, even though he did not "seriously pursue the claim against Hale" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). The case against Ford was based on "two product liability claims: one for not testing the seat belt and the other a design defect claim related to the vehicles tendency to rollover" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). Branham alleged in his case that "Ford was negligent and strictly liable in failing to effectively test the

1. What did Nancy Denny think she was buying? What did she buy? On what legal theories did she sue? On what basis did she win?

It was found that no, Good Year Tire & Rubber Company was not responsible for the “other cost and losses” of the Plaintiffs. Good Year was not obligated to pay the Plaintiffs since there was no agreement made for payment. The error that was found was bought to Good Year’s attention but the attorneys failed to agree on the correct amount.

On or about June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s automobile, a 2006 Lincoln LS, was stolen from her and burned to the point where the property damage to the automobile was determined to be a total loss. At the time, the Plaintiff was covered by an automobile insurance police with the

This loss involves a middle age female who was boarding the insured’s shuttle bus at the Louis Armstrong Airport in New Orleans, LA. On 1120/11, the insured operator, a new employee, failed to properly place the shuttle bus in park, causing the bus to shift resulting in the plaintiff briefly loosing her balance. According to the insured operator, the plaintiff never fell and disembarked the shuttle with no injuries.

The court case is that Dr. Nalwa took her two kids on bummer car at the Great America amusement park. While they were riding the ride, she fractured her wrist. She saying that the ride was not safe. That it was the amusement park fault.

Individuals have a legal and moral right to receive compensation for their injuries. No corporation or entity should be permitted to have a negative impact on a person's life without being held responsible. The new legal division at Zanes Law works to ensure they are accountable for their

This case involves a single motor vehicle accident that occurred on rural property located near Floresville, Texas. The accident occurred when the Co-Defendant, Lee Ricks, IV, drove his jeep off a ledge near the bank of the San Antonio River. The accident occurred at night and on property owned by Riverbend Development, LLC. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was occupied by Brittany Baltzell and the two Plaintiffs, Ashley Simmons and Austin Wright. Ms. Baltzelll was Mr. Ricks girlfriend at the time and she and Mr. Ricks were not seriously injured as a result of the accident. Both the Plaintiffs claim serious physical injuries and have sued Mr. Ricks for negligent driving. They have also sued the insureds, Riverbend Development, LLC

If Jimmy did give Billy permission, then Jimmy is the bailor and Billy is the bailee, and the benefit is of the bailee (Billy). The standard of care is high (great care) and the standard of proof is low. This could be mutual too, because if Jimmy exchanged the truck to use Billy’s house for a few hours, then they both benefited (same standard of care and of proof as in situation two). But if Billy was supposed to have watched the truck for Jimmy’s benefit, then the benefit would have been for just Jimmy (the bailor); the standard of care would be low (slight care) and the standard of proof is high being liable for gross negligence. This means that Jimmy would have to prove that Billy acted with extreme carelessness. But, if this is the case, then Billy did not have permission, so he had no right to use the truck. If I understand the textbook correctly, then the use without permission is technically a “tort of conversion” on Billy, which makes him liable for the damages. Even If he used great care and parked properly in a parking zone, and wasn’t guilty of negligence, Billy is liable/responsible for the major damages done by the drunk driver slamming into the truck. The truck would have to have been parked properly in a “parking zone;” otherwise, there could be issues about that. In conclusion, it looks like Timmy is liable for the alignment, the valet (hotel Hyatt) for the scratches, and Billy for the other major damages. Yikes! What a messy

This loss involves a wrongful death action of a 16 year old male passenger on the insured’s bus (open air double decker) in Los Angles Ca. The claimant was invited to attend his friends sweet sixteen party, where the friends parents (Schlossberg), charted the bus from the insured for a tour of Los Angeles. During the tour the sixteen year olds (minors) were on the top level while the adults remained on the deck below. Since the minors were not interested in the tour, the tour guide (provided by the insured) joined the other adults on the deck below.

Facts: A motorcycle accident occurred in California where a husband was severely injured and the wife was killed. The plaintiffs in the lower court raised a product liability claim against the tire manufacturer, alleging the cause of the accident resulted from a sudden tire explosion. The suit was filed in California, but the manufacturer defendant did not conduct business in that state. This case hinged on jurisdictional issues.

MS.WHITE’S ARGUMENT THAT SAGE RENT-A-CAR INC. IS REQUIRED TO CARRY INSURANCE UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE MANDATORY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT HAVING A DUTY TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILTY FOR THIS ACCIDENT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. AS A RESULT, SAGE RENT-A-CAR INC. CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF MR. CALKIN.

This paper will discuss the legal issues in Case Example D. In the case of Daniel Boone versus Zoom Car Company, the legal issue involves Daniel Boone suing Zoom Car Company for medical costs he endured from a severe beating when using a defective product that the company provided. The defendant, Zoom Car Company, is an automobile manufacturing company that offers its customers a number of extra features, including a compass that is installed on the cars dashboard. The compass is manufactured by Corrigan Rulers, Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc.

I was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident involving a deer. On scene I made contact with the victim Janine Dickerson. She advised that while driving home she struck a deer. She stated that she was not hurt but I did observe that the air bags had deployed. I advised dispatch of the air bag deployment and to have Troy FD and Haynes en route to render first aid. I observed major damage to the front of the vehicle to include bumper and hood damage. Due to the incapacitating damage to the vehicle, it was towed by Jacobs Paint and Body. I advise Dickerson to get in contact with the insurer of the vehicle and advised them on the accident. I also advised on how to obtain this report. I then transported Dickerson to Z-tec on US-231 S where her

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has established guidelines for all automakers to fallow. The guidelines were made to reduce fire during automobile collision. In 1972 and 1973 , the standard was 20mph and 30 mph of a rear end accident without any spillage of fuel (, Shaw & Barry). On the other hand, Pinto could not withstand such impact spilling fuel on passengers inside the car. Between 1971-1978, Ford statistics on death by Pinto to 13 lives while critic put it at 500 (, Shaw & Barry). Several lawsuits were initiated by the victims and fines were paid by Ford motor. Even though, the organization claimed they were following established rules, but the ethical and moral position would have been to acknowledge the fault of the car and apologized for the fatality. Nevertheless, the executives stood by their product and never waiver the fact that the product was not safe to be on the road. Several families sued Ford Motor and received compensation for their lost, but it is not like having the alive and well. Through the years, the company survive all those obstacle and remained in business. An apology to the families who have lost love one would have been seen as repentant to one action. The situation would not bring back those individuals, but earned a bit of respect from