Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Robert L. Turcotte, Administrator of the Estate of Gerard P. Turcotte v. Ford Motor Company

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided April 8, 1974No. 73-1251Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoore, Circuit Judge

I cannot bring myself to subscribe to or accept a doctrine that “our nation’s crowded, high-speed highways makes involvement in collisions foreseeable to manufacturers as an inevitable consequence of normal use” of an automobile. *188The collision here was with such force as to cause the gas tank of the vehicle struck from the rear to burst into flames. Even assuming that there was a “defective condition” in that the gas tank’s top was a part of the floor of the ' car, to create liability it must have been “unreasonably dangerous.” Collisions foreseeable, yes, but collisions of the type before…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Erling David Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
  2. Barbara F. Evans, Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy Evans, Deceased v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
  3. Davis v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. Theobald v. AngelosSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
  5. Ritter v. Narragansett Electric CompanySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1971

3 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