Hood v. Roadtec, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
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
- Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1973
- Browder v. PettigrewTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
- Strickland v. StricklandCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1981
- Gann v. INTERN. HARVESTER CO. OF CANADA, LTD.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1986
- Pankow v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pettus v. HurstCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1993
- Potter v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2006
- McKinnie v. Lundell Manufacturing Co.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1993
- Overton v. State of TennesseeDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2022
- Potter v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.