Friday, March 23, 2012

SOULE V. GM CO. case brief


• consumer contemplation test does not make sense again – consumers do not pay attention to the floor board in a new car – not within the parameters of consumer contemplation
• error to instruct jury on consumer contemplation test, but not a reversible error because there was enough expert testimony to make the jury knowledgeable
1.Campbell – p. 566 – bus passenger thrown from seat and injured during a sharp turn; P claimed defective design because there was no grab bar – court agreed and held that consumers would expect a grab bar on public bus
      1. Pruitt – airbag deployment at low impact; court refused to charge on consumer expectation test because it is a more technical issue that requires experts
      2. Morton – consumer contemplation works here
      3. **if there is something about the alleged defect that is hidden and non obvious, use ‘excessive preventable danger’ test which burdens the defendant.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...