Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Case Notes

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
July 29, 2009

Woman Run Over by Her Own SUV Gets $32M

In Mundy v. Ford Motor Co., No. 07-A-74503-2, De Kalb County Super.Ct.,GA, May 6, 2009, a woman who was paralyzed when her Ford sport utility vehicle ran her over because of an alleged transmission defect recovered $32 million. Jessica Mundy argued the 2004 Ford Explorer slipped from park to reverse after she got out of the SUV to put a package in a mailbox. As the SUV started rolling backward, Mundy tried to hop inside, but she was knocked to the ground by the door that she had left open. She sued Ford, alleging a design defect, and Legacy Ford Mercury Inc., for breach of warranty. The jury found that both defendants were liable, but Mundy was 20% liable for trying to get back inside the truck, which reduced the $40 million award.

Driver Injured in a Crash Involving a Nissan Gets $2.2M

A jury awarded nearly $2.2 million to a woman who claimed she was injured in a crash with her 1995 Nissan Pathfinder because the automaker did not do adequate crash testing. Perdue v. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., No. 2:07-CV-546 (E.D. Tx., May 1, 2009).

Rebecca Perdue, who is in her 60s, sustained fractures to her right leg and both ankles. She claimed Nissan failed to conduct crash testing or engineering analysis to evaluate the risk of lower leg injuries in frontal “offset impacts” (head-on, but not completely lined up). She claimed that for several years all manufacturers except Nissan and two others had been conducting frontal offset crash tests to learn how to protect lower legs. The jury found that the Pathfinder was defectively designed and Nissan was solely responsible for Perdue's injuries.

Woman Run Over by Her Own SUV Gets $32M

In Mundy v. Ford Motor Co., No. 07-A-74503-2, De Kalb County Super.Ct.,GA, May 6, 2009, a woman who was paralyzed when her Ford sport utility vehicle ran her over because of an alleged transmission defect recovered $32 million. Jessica Mundy argued the 2004 Ford Explorer slipped from park to reverse after she got out of the SUV to put a package in a mailbox. As the SUV started rolling backward, Mundy tried to hop inside, but she was knocked to the ground by the door that she had left open. She sued Ford, alleging a design defect, and Legacy Ford Mercury Inc., for breach of warranty. The jury found that both defendants were liable, but Mundy was 20% liable for trying to get back inside the truck, which reduced the $40 million award.

Driver Injured in a Crash Involving a Nissan Gets $2.2M

A jury awarded nearly $2.2 million to a woman who claimed she was injured in a crash with her 1995 Nissan Pathfinder because the automaker did not do adequate crash testing. Perdue v. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., No. 2:07-CV-546 (E.D. Tx., May 1, 2009).

Rebecca Perdue, who is in her 60s, sustained fractures to her right leg and both ankles. She claimed Nissan failed to conduct crash testing or engineering analysis to evaluate the risk of lower leg injuries in frontal “offset impacts” (head-on, but not completely lined up). She claimed that for several years all manufacturers except Nissan and two others had been conducting frontal offset crash tests to learn how to protect lower legs. The jury found that the Pathfinder was defectively designed and Nissan was solely responsible for Perdue's injuries.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

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.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

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.