Legal Opinion

Montez v. Ford Motor Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 23, 1980No. Civ. 18579PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WIENER, J.

A plaintiff in an action for personal injuries in a products liability case is not required to elect whether to proceed on a theory of strict liability in tort or on a theory of negligence where the instructions on the two theories will not be confusing to the jury. (Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 387 [93 Cal.Rptr. 769, 482 P.2d 681, 52 A.L.R.3d 92].) At issue in this appeal is whether the court’s rejection of plaintiffs negligence instructions and its decision to instruct the jury solely on strict liability was prejudicial error. We conclude that in a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.California Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. Cavers v. Cushman Motor Sales, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1979

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. Buckley v. BellWyoming Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Wilson v. John Crane, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. McLaughlin v. Michelin Tire Corp.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1989

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API