At oral argument, Ford presented more detail for its argument that the … Terri Wangen and other individuals (plaintiffs) were involved in an automobile collision between a Ford Mustang (Mustang) and another car. Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews; From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs... Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews. Before this court, Ford has continued to refuse to recognize the right of a buyer to revoke acceptance if Ford and its selling dealer fail to remedy the defect within a reasonable time. Ford's own documents disclosed its knowledge that if certain automobiles were struck from the rear they would burn, with a strong probability of resulting injury to the occupants; nevertheless, Ford management decided not to correct this defect or warn the owners of the danger created thereby. Likewise, crash tests and other exhibits created by Ford after the date of manufacture of the 1975 Mustang II exhibited the same characteristics of crush and collapse from rear-end impact, and also showed Ford's knowledge of the hazard at a point in time prior to the collision in which Terri Stubblefield was fatally injured. Main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service: Jan 13 2020: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020. CO. v. CITY OF ATLANTA, Court of Appeals of Georgia. When a taxpayer overpays his taxes, he is entitled … VIDED. Doctors ruled the condition permanent and incurable. Relevant Facts: Chang was a passenger in a 1987 Ford van owned and driven by his daughter. See Poppell v. Waters, 126 Ga. App. *338 "Any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove any material fact which is at issue in the case, and every act or circumstance serving to elucidate or throw light upon a material issue or issues is relevant. IRAC CASE STUDY ANALYSIS DODGE V. FORD MOTOR CO. LAW/531 January 15, 2016 Maria Wood Table of Contents Dodge v. Ford Motor 80-1205. Relevant Facts: Matthews was killed as a result of being run over by his tractor and dragged underneath a disc attachment. Today’s case is Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 414 S.C 185, 777 S.E.2d 824 (2015). Argued April 20, 1982. Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982) Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Summary of Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews, S. Ct Mississippi [1974] Defenses. Oct 23 2013: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 8, 2013. Such manufacturer may be subject to liability for failing to adequately warn the user of the known or foreseen danger if there is no reason to believe the user will realize the dangerous condition. Ct. N. J. App. RENDERED: APRIL 26, 2018 TO BE PUBLISH~D juprttttt