Legal Opinion
Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 27, 1999No. 92 Civ. 2900(NRB)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
BUCHWALD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Kathleen Madaline Jarvis (“plaintiff’ or “Jarvis”) filed this diversity action alleging that she was injured on July 14,1991 when the 1991 Ford Aerostar she was operating suddenly accelerated and traveled into a ditch. 1 Plaintiff alleged that a design defect in the automobile’s cruise control system caused the sudden acceleration. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiffs Aerostar was not defectively designed but that Ford Motor Company (“defendant” or “Ford”) nevertheless had been negligent in the design…
2Cases cited63 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Marc J. Anderson & Jeffrey E. Grubb v. Dennis Branen, Ross Kindestin, Ed WisniefskiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Marilyn GALDIERI-AMBROSINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kathleen Madaline Jarvis, Individually and as a Parent and Guardian of Paul Michael Attila Jarvis, a Minor v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Federico v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
- Kathleen Madaline Jarvis, Individually and as a Parent and Guardian of Paul Michael Attila Jarvis, a Minor v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002