Five years old Cheyenne stark was riding in the backseat of her parents ford tar
ID: 2709226 • Letter: F
Question
Five years old Cheyenne stark was riding in the backseat of her parents ford tarus. Cheyenne was not sitting in a booster seat. Instead, she was using a seatbelt designed by ford ,but was wearing the shoulder belt behind her back. The car was involved in collision. As a result, Cheyenne suffered a spinal cord injury and was paralyzed from the waist down. The family filed a suit against ford motor co , alleging that the seatbelt was defectively designed. Could ford successfully claim that Cheyenne had misused the seatbelt? Why? Why not? What if the fact were different? And the legal environment dimension at the end of case. I need little bit elaborate., Thank you . Five years old Cheyenne stark was riding in the backseat of her parents ford tarus. Cheyenne was not sitting in a booster seat. Instead, she was using a seatbelt designed by ford ,but was wearing the shoulder belt behind her back. The car was involved in collision. As a result, Cheyenne suffered a spinal cord injury and was paralyzed from the waist down. The family filed a suit against ford motor co , alleging that the seatbelt was defectively designed. Could ford successfully claim that Cheyenne had misused the seatbelt? Why? Why not? What if the fact were different? And the legal environment dimension at the end of case. I need little bit elaborate., Thank you . Five years old Cheyenne stark was riding in the backseat of her parents ford tarus. Cheyenne was not sitting in a booster seat. Instead, she was using a seatbelt designed by ford ,but was wearing the shoulder belt behind her back. The car was involved in collision. As a result, Cheyenne suffered a spinal cord injury and was paralyzed from the waist down. The family filed a suit against ford motor co , alleging that the seatbelt was defectively designed. Could ford successfully claim that Cheyenne had misused the seatbelt? Why? Why not? What if the fact were different? And the legal environment dimension at the end of case. I need little bit elaborate., Thank you .Explanation / Answer
Answer: Yes, ford successfully claim that Cheyenne had misused the seatbelt.Cheyenne and Cody were passengers in the back seat of the Taurus on 23 April 2003. At the time of the accident, Cheyenne was five years old and Cody was nine years old. Each was secured in the Taurus by a three-point seatbelt designed by Defendant. Neither Cheyenne nor Cody was sitting in a booster seat. Their three-year-old sibling, Cory, was sitting in the middle of the back seat.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on 17 February 2005. The trial court filed an order on 22 August 2005 granting Defendant's motion as to: (1) the claim for cognitive injury to Cheyenne, and (2) the claim based on the sudden unintended acceleration of the Taurus. In its order, the trial court also dismissed personal injury claims asserted by Gordon Stark and Cory. The trial court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the remainder of claims, finding that there remained genuine issues of material fact.
In conclusion, because the language of the statute is clear, I agree with its application in this case. If in fact the legislature intended the modification defense to apply when the modifier is not a party to the products liability action, it can revisit the issue and amend the statute. As written, however, the language is subject to only its plain and ordinary interpretation, which comports with that of the majority.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1524365.html
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.