Legal Opinion
Morgen v. Ford Motor Co.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided January 28, 2002No. 71A03-0003-CV-108PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VAIDIK, Judge.
Case Summary
Appellant, Monterey P. Morgen, appeals four issues arising out of a verdiet against him in a products lability suit he filed against Ford Motor Company. First, he contends that the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction on the defense of product misuse solely because he did not wear his seat belt at the time of his injuries. He also argues that the trial court erroneously refused to give the jury instructions regarding Ford's duty to warn and an instruction stating that there could be more than one proximate cause of his injury. Finally, Morgen asserts…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1995
- Hoffman v. E.W. Bliss Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1983
- John D. Melia, Special Administrator of the Estate of Pearl Lorraine Norgaard, Deceased v. Ford Motor Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
- American Motors Corp. v. EllisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Jackson v. WarrumIndiana Court of Appeals · 1989
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- In the Matter of Bridgestone/firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation. Appeals of Bridgestone/firestone, Inc., Bridgestone Corporation, and Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- In re Propulsid Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2002
- Morgen v. Ford Motor Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 2003
- St. Mary's Medical Center of Evansville, Inc. v. LoomisIndiana Court of Appeals · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.