Legal Opinion
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 22, 1998No. C5-98-949PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SHUMAKER, Judge.
Appellants Daniel and Barbara Hoffman asserted claims of defective manufacture and breach of warranty against respondent Ford Motor Company as a result of a fire allegedly caused by their 1993 Ford Taurus. The trial court bifurcated the trial and first heard evidence as to notice, spoliation, and prejudice. After the first phase of the bifurcated trial, the court found that Daniel Hoffman’s telephone call to the dealer from whom he purchased the car was not a sufficient notice of a claim or breach. The trial court also found that important evidence had been de stroyed,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Marrocco v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Hirsch v. General Motors Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
- American Family Insurance v. Village Pontiac-GMC, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1992
- Prutch v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- American Family Mutual Insurance v. GolkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
- Miller v. LankowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Wajda v. KingsburyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- Foust v. McFairlandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- Cumberland Insurance Group v. Delmarva PowerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2016
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.