Plaintiffs in a rollover case should have been able to introduce evidence contesting a theory of injury that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration disavowed in 2009, the plaintiffs’ attorney argued before an en banc Superior Court panel in Philadelphia last week.
Richard Angino of Angino and Lutz, who represented the plaintiffs in Parr v. Ford Motor, argued that the trial court had improperly based its decision to preclude NHTSA documents that discounted the defendant’s injury theory solely because the study had been performed after the plaintiff’s accident occurred.
This content has been archived.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]
