Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

So gm took the car but a roll cage in it as requested

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: h factually was to say that it wouldn't have prevented this injury cause in fact question (but for lack of roll cage, injury still wouldn't have happened). So, GM took the car, but a roll cage in it (as requested by a plaintiff)...put the car on a dolly and crashed it into a concrete wall at 35 mph. NOT PROPER SIMULATION....plaintiff's had drifted into a ditch! o THIS WAS A JOKE, EXCLUDED BY TRIAL JUDGE o Compared to this, the experiment provided for in Fusco looks pretty plausible. Back to Fusco: GM lawyers could argue that the judge applied the wrong legal standards! Judge simply applied the law on the books what the cases say, but here we see a connection between Simon and Fusco: o Simon lower court judge just followed the law, main law said you can't show other accidents in an accident case! But then we find out what the Supreme Court of Maine said, but the adoption of rules 401,402,403 changed that line of case law..it's not good anymore when you look at the rules against that case law...they don't match o Fusco...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online