Legal Opinion

Hood v. Roadtec, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided June 30, 1989PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GODDARD, Judge.

In this products liability action, Roadtec, Inc., and Astee Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, appeal a jury verdict in favor of Harold and Sandra Hood, Plaintiffs-Appellees. The Defendants urge this Court to vacate the judgment below and order a new trial, primarily because of the Plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the identity of a witness during the principal discovery stage of the lawsuit. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case for a new trial.

*361In August 1986, the Hoods filed suit against the Defendants, both Tennessee…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Browder v. PettigrewTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Strickland v. StricklandCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1981
  4. Gann v. INTERN. HARVESTER CO. OF CANADA, LTD.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Pankow v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1987

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pettus v. HurstCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1993
  2. Potter v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2006
  3. McKinnie v. Lundell Manufacturing Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1993
  4. Overton v. State of TennesseeDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2022
  5. Potter v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2006

1 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