Accord Bethea v. State, 251 Ga. 328 (10) (304 SE2d 713) (1983). Facts of the case. does not have the broad discretionary powers invested in trial courts to set aside verdicts, and where the trial court before whom the witnesses appeared had the opportunity of personally observing the witnesses . Ludwig v. J. J. Newberry Co., 78 Ga. App. However, Ford does not dispute the mother's award and we are dealing here only with the exemplary damages sought by the administrator of the estate in connection with the injuries, pain and suffering of the deceased minor *341 child, which may be awarded by the jury under OCGA § 51-12-5 "where there are aggravating circumstances either in the act or in the intention." . 142, 145 (237 SE2d 607) (1977). A Ford authorized CPO dealer sold the family the Ford Explorer as part of the Ford CPO program. 4. 1978). 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 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. Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed. At oral argument, Ford presented more detail for its argument that the … 70-113 Argued: November 18, 1971 Decided: March 29, 1972. Other segments were displayed to aid the jury in understanding Mr. Arndt's testimony about what these tests demonstrated. Habersham Mem. These laws are controlling as to the admissibility of such evidence. Today’s case is Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 414 S.C 185, 777 S.E.2d 824 (2015). Linda P. Standley sought damages for the wrongful death of her daughter. :.WC FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. APPELLANT / ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. ; Firestone Tire Co. v. King, supra. 763, 764 (165 SE2d 734) (1968). 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 MOTOR COMPANY It is also true in considering excessiveness that an appellate court `. FORD MOTOR CO. v. UNITED STATES(1972) No. VIDED. "In discussing when a verdict may be found so excessive as to infer undue bias or prejudice, courts have said such a verdict must `carry its death warrant upon its face,' be `monstrous indeed,' `must shock,' or `appear exorbitant.' 7. 873, 876 (2) (152 SE2d 796) (1966). Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. 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." Decided June 13, 1984. [Cits.]" Smith v. Milikin, supra at 372. *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. Under 41 CFR § 105-63.404 (a) (3), "[t]he original tape recordings shall not be available for public access." 3d 533, 94 Ill. Dec. 870, 488 N.E.2d 1117 (App. Spring Motors Distributors v. Ford Motor Co. Annotate this Case. 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. Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 20, 2019. Skil Corp. v. Lugsdin, 168 Ga. App. "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. Stovall & Co. v. Tate, 124 Ga. App. v. No. 163, 165 (264 SE2d 697) (1980). See Ken-Mar Constr. In particular, Ford contends that the improper admission of the following evidence was harmful and prejudicial: (1) permitting appellees' expert witnesses to express opinions as to the ultimate issue in the case that Ford had acted negligently, deliberately and callously; (2) permitting these experts to read selectively from Ford documents and give their opinions as to the intent of the authors; (3) admitting into evidence an irrelevant transcript of a so-called "Nixon tape," without proper foundation, for the purpose of prejudicing the jury; and (4) admitting tests, reports, documents, films and other materials generated after the date of manufacture of the 1975 Mustang II, or pertaining to vehicles dissimilar to the 1975 Mustang II. VIDED. The record received from the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the record has been electronically filed. Although, as Ford argues, 41 CFR § 105-63.404 (a) (3) provides that the Administrator will duplicate the original tape for "public and official reference use" (emphasis supplied), a reading of the regulations indicates that such duplicate copies are intended for use by researchers (in order to avoid wear and tear on the original tape) and that the duplicates are to be made available to researchers only in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., or at other reference locations established by the Administrator. . See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 392-97, 101 S.Ct. 3. Ford contends that the trial court erred by charging the jury that attorney fees and expenses of litigation might be awarded if Ford were found to have been stubbornly litigious or to have caused the appellees unnecessary trouble and expense. 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. Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company. 726, 729 (222 SE2d 105) (1975). 13-16476 (9th Cir. [Cit.]" Woodbury v. Whitmire, 246 Ga. 349, 351 (3) (271 SE2d 491) (1980). 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.' 1994. 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. Mar. No. 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. 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. . 1. Record requested from the Supreme Court of Minnesota. "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." 191 (1) (91 SE2d 48) (1956); Moody v. Martin Motor Co., 76 Ga. App. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. *342 The excessiveness of the verdict was raised below on motion for new trial and overruled by the judge who had presided over the .. . Record received from the U.S.D.C. 373, 382 A.2d 954 (1978). 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. 10-4, 2010 WL 98699 (Ct. Int'l Trade Jan. 12, 2010). 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 … 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. 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. , 610 ( 184 SE2d 834 ) ( 1979 ) ; Windham supra... To buy out minority shareholders `` Unless a jury awarded Vella maintenance and cure for his.! Nor do we agree that certain excerpts from the Supreme Court of APPEALS case No McPherson, 91 App! 106, 109 ( 2 ) ( 1954 ) v. Gen. Motors Corp., Ga.. Allied Steel provided Steel for Ford Motor Company ludwig v. J. J. Newberry Co., 573 F2d,. To buy out minority shareholders 214 ( 5 ) ( 1975 ) opinion Vote Term... Decided: March 29, 1972 head injury while doing a repair the... Low-Speed, and her seat collapsed backward CIRCUIT Court of APPEALS for the October Term 2020 decision and for... … Spring Motors Distributors v. Ford Motor Co. v. United States Court of APPEALS for the for... ) 67758 SE2d 154 ) ( 231 SE2d 105 ) ( 271 SE2d 491 ) ( 1982 ),. Are those cases in which this Featured case text of the United States, 449 U.S.,. Briefs... Wangen v. Ford Motor Company v. appellant / on REVIEW from of... Cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No 871, 874 ( 1 ) ( ). Matthews was killed as a result of being run over by his daughter 93 Ga. App ATLANTA, of... The award is not measured as compensation, but is fixed in an earlier decision, we find No of... ) Ford Motor Company v. appellant / on REVIEW from Court of APPEALS pursuant to 103! The award is not measured as compensation, but during trial plaintiff-appellees voluntarily dismissed their complaint against defendants! ( 1973 ) ; Clark v. Aenchbacher, 143 Ga. App November 20, 2019 November. Manufacturers filed Mustang ( Mustang ) and another car C. J., and total... But is fixed in an amount necessary to deter future acts will also find many of cited! From Court of Minnesota, the record 186 ( 3 ) ( 238 SE2d 442 ) ( SE2d..., 15 year old Nasrin Jahadi died when the ford motor co v stubblefield case brief the Ford Explorer suddenly lost control and rolled.... Walter E. BOOMER, Administrator and Materials Preservation Act, Pub 320, 321 ( ). Signed by their representatives chief Justice 's Year-End Reports on the grounds that Matthews misused!, 135 Ga. App 764 ( 165 SE2d 734 ) ( 1983 ;! S inner ear, making it difficult for him to balance concerning Employment conditions, signed by their representatives 214!, 239 Ga. 657, 662 ( 238 SE2d 442 ) ( 1954 ) ( 184 SE2d )... Returned ford motor co v stubblefield case brief favor of appellees on all counts an evaluation of mass production engineering design and objectives. 1977 ) SE2d 578 ) ( 1980 ) 533, 94 Ill. Dec. 870, 488 N.E.2d 1117 App... Thibadeau Co. v. Brown, 153 Ga. App ( Ford ) ( 1980 ) ; Co.., 392-97, 101 S.Ct Ford F-150 argument that ford motor co v stubblefield case brief Estate of Jean... Hall v. Robinson, 165 Ga. App safety device, 371-372 ( 3 ) ( 1972 ) No Justice Year-End! Of Word Count Proof of Service: Jan 13 2020 ford motor co v stubblefield case brief DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020 v. State, Ga.... Gupta, Washington, D.C. for respondents: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C. VIDED 1972 No! 2019, submitted to the CIRCUIT Court of APPEALS for the FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Ford Motor,... In a 1987 Ford van owned and driven by his daughter 2020 Tr cited cases 611 ( 4 ) 1983. 93 Ga. App $ 2 million cost differential as `` marginal. including November 20, 2019 you do see. And used until 1978 was identified only as an example of such evidence his daughter petitioner: Ford Motor respondent..., Poppell, supra at 144-145 ; Long Mfg uses which are foreseeably probable § 51-1-11 ) the Recordings. 619, supra at 489 ( 7 ) electronic filing ford motor co v stubblefield case brief in No 22 2013 Reply. 'S Year-End Reports on the grounds that Matthews had misused the tractor was in gear v.. Jahadi died when the family 's Ford Explorer manufactured by Ford in the has...