The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided to follow a federal court’s example and will allow a car company to argue a controversial theory of injury during roll-over accidents that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration disavowed in 2009.
In its Dec. 24, 2013, ruling in Parr v. Ford Motor, a split three-judge Superior Court panel upheld a trial court’s decision to dismiss post-trial motions contending that Ford’s theory of injury was inadmissible because the NHTSA had determined that roof crush and not “diving” and “torso augmentation,” which Ford had argued, cause head and neck injuries to belted passengers. The argument presented an issue of apparent first impression for the Superior Court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
