Legal Opinion
Bryant Flury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided October 5, 2005No. 04-15182PublishedCited by 153 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FAY, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff, Bryant Flury (“Flury”), sued defendant, Daimler Chrysler Corp. (“DCC”), for enhanced injuries, which he claimed to have suffered as a result of a manufacturing defect in his vehicle’s airbag system. On June 30, 2004, a jury awarded Flury $250,000 for enhanced injury. DCC now appeals on the following three grounds: (1) The district court erred in denying DCC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50; (2) The district court erred in allowing the testimony of Flury’s accident reconstruction expert, Barry Riner (“Riner”); and (3) The district…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Combs v. Plantation PatternsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
- Mark N. Silvestri v. General Motors Corporation, Dfendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by153 opinions
- Mann v. Taser International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2009
- Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
- Hendrix Ex Rel. Gp v. Evenflo Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
- Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2010
- Goodman v. Praxair Services, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2009
148 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.