Denny v. Ford Motor Company by

Risk v. Utility

pherion56638 — 2016-02-01 14:56:49 UTC

Ford claimed that the car was made for off road and not made for use on regular roads or city driving. The design had a high center of gravity and small wheel base, which in the plaintiff's eyes, contributed to the accident. Ford claimed that those modifications were used to help the Bronco drive in off-road conditions.

Comparative Fault

pherion56638 — 2016-02-01 15:03:18 UTC

The victims action did attribute to her injuries because the car was not made to turn at a high speed because of its small wheel base and its basic design. Because she turned at such a high speed, she contributed to the accident.

Assumption of Risk

pherion56638 — 2016-02-01 15:08:40 UTC

The plaintiff did not have a assumption of risk because she did not know that the car was going to rollover after dodging the deer. She was anaware of what was going to happen

Plaintiff

pherion56638 — 2016-02-01 15:11:31 UTC

The Plaintiff was Nancy Denny

Defendant

pherion56638 — 2016-02-01 15:12:14 UTC

Ford Motor Company

What Happened

pherion56638 — 2016-02-01 15:13:12 UTC

In the original case Denny sued for three things; Negligence, Strict Liability and Implied Warranty. The court turned down negligence and only saw the strict liability and implied warranty. At the end of the case Denny was awarded 1.2 million dollars for the warranty case but found Ford not responsible for the strict liability case.

The End Result

pherion56638 — 2016-02-01 15:16:42 UTC

Denny was awarded 1.2 million dollars for her case about the warranty but none for the negligence and the strict liability.

I believe that the ruling was fair because ford had proved the strict liability case was not their responcibility but they hadn't proved enough for the warranty case.

When?

pherion56638 — 2016-02-02 00:32:21 UTC

The case was filled in the year 1995 on December 5th