Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Maurizio D. Fortunato v. Ford Motor Company

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided July 10, 1972No. 672, Docket 72-1051Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMansfield, Circuit Judge

I concur in the view that a directed verdict for the defendant was not mandated by the “physical facts rule”, substantially for the reasons stated by the majority. On the other hand, the tests and expert testimony introduced by Ford in its effort to show that the accident could not have been caused by a defect in the gas tank of plaintiff’s Mustang, when considered with all of the other evidence, demonstrates that the issue of liability was an extremely close one. With the scales so evenly balanced Ford, in my view, was erroneously precluded from introducing proof which might well have…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Krulewitch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Throckmorton v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  3. John Koufakis v. Thomas Carvel and Franchise Licensors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
  4. Fletcher v. Baltimore & Potomac RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. De Salvo v. Stanley-Mark-Strand Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1939

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API