Friedman v. General Motors Corp.docx - Friedman v General Motors Corp Supreme Court of Ohio 1975 Facts: drive,.,

Friedman v. General Motors Corp.docx - Friedman v General...

This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.

Friedman v. General Motors Corp, Supreme Court of Ohio, 1975Facts: Plaintiff claimed that he turned the ignition on his 17 month old Oldsmobile while it was in drive, not expecting it to start. The car did start and leaped forward, and the plaintiff was unable to control the car before it crashed. Mr. Friedman and three of his family members were injured in the crash. Procedural History: The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, on the ground that Plaintiffs had not proved the car was defective. The appellate court reversed and Defendant appealed.Issues: Whether the Plaintiffs’ introduce evidence of a sufficient quality to overcome Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict?Holding (and Judgment):Yes. (Judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed).  The court said 
Background image

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read the whole page?

  • Fall '14
  • Marie Boyd
  • New Deal, Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice of the United States, Rutgers University

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture