Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

We dont have in the rules themselves a rule about

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: ddress specific situations where it is handy to have a specific rule Third category: Dealing with specific relevancy but not IN the rules. We don't have in the rules themselves, a rule about other accidents or a rule about reconstruction experiments and demonstrations. But at the same time, there is law about that...specific to those recurring problems. o Simon v. Kennebunkport = naturally occurring similar accidents o Fusco case = contrived situation trying to imitate naturally occurring similar accidents. FUSCO v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. [Specific relevancy rules that are not codified evidence of a contrived situation trying to imitate naturally occurring similar accidents.] Facts/Procedural Posture: Fusco was driving her chevette when it suddenly left the roadway, slid across an ice-covered embankment and hit a telephone pole. Fusco brought suit claiming that a key component in the steering system the front left "ball statud" had broken from metal fatigue and caused the disaster. General Motors' appealed claiming that the district court erred in ruling that two demonstration videotap...
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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online