Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
Summary Judgment Appropriate when Plaintiff Cannot Establish That Tire Defect Caused Accident
Summary judgment is appropriate when the plaintiff cannot establish that the existence of a defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; the mere existence of a defect does not prove that the defect was responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. In re Bridgestone/Firestone Incorporated, Tires Product Liability Litigation No. 04-1611, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, June 6, 2005-08-11.
Jett purchased a new Ford Explorer in October 1997, which came equipped with Firestone Wilderness AT tires. In March 1998, while operating the vehicle, Jett heard a “tapping” noise from her right rear tire. An accident ensued, and Jett suffered physical injuries. After the accident, Jett went to a salvage yard, where she observed that the tread of the right rear tire had separated from the base of the tire. The vehicle was then sold to another salvage yard, and Jett was unable to recover her vehicle. In 2000, Jett was informed about some Firestone tires that had experienced tread separation problems and about the eventual Firestone recall. Although Jett had not preserved the tire, she commenced a product liability action against Firestone. Firestone moved for summary judgment, arguing that Jett had not produced sufficient evidence that the defect in the tire was the cause of her accident. The district court granted the summary judgment motion, and the appellate court affirmed. It held summary judgment was appropriate because Jett could not establish that the mere existence of the tire tread defect was the cause of her accident. The court held that where direct evidence is lacking, it is the plaintiff's burden to negate other possible causes by a preponderance of the evidence. It held that it is necessary for the plaintiff to eliminate other causes that might have arisen so that the trier of fact is not left to speculation and conjecture. Although in this case, the defect in the Firestone tire might have led to a higher chance of failure, Jett could not establish that this defect was the proximate cause of her particular accident.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.