Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McBride v. Ford Motor Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1983No. 13441Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

The plaintiffs-appellants were denied a fair trial in this case because of errors in crucial evidentiary rulings and errors in instructions. Upon the record before us, this case should be remanded for a new trial because of those errors.

The majority today holds in Part I-A that “the court’s instructions, taken as a whole, correctly instructed the jury on the law applicable to the issues.” Supra at 62. However, the trial court failed in its duty to instruct the jury on the law of strict liability, which comprised the hub of plaintiffs’ case. Therefore, reversible error was committed and a new…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Farmer v. International Harvester CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Yacht Club Sales & Service, Inc. v. First National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Everton v. BlairIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Becker v. Aquaslide 'N' Drive Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1975

1 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