Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilliam B. Brown, J.
1(A).
Appellants’ first three propositions of law raise essentially the same issue: that only negligence principles should be applied in a design defect case involving a so-called “second collision.” In this case, appellees seek to hold appellants liable for injuries “enhanced” by a design defect of the vehicle in which appellees were riding when an accident occurred. This cause of action is to be contrasted with that where the alleged defect causes the accident itself. Here, the “second collision” is that between appellees and the vehicle in which they were riding.
Appellants assert that the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Erling David Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1972
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by145 opinions
- Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Preston v. MurtyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- General Motors Corp. v. SanchezTexas Supreme Court · 1999
- George BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Y & O PRESS COMPANY, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
140 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.