Ford v Ledesma TX 2007

Ford v Ledesma TX 2007 - 1121PXT Time of Request:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 121PXT Time of Request: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 07:04:02 EST Client ID/Project Name: xyz Number of Lines: 510 Job Number: 2862:178714937 Research Information Service: LEXSEE(R) Feature Print Request: Current Document: 1 Source: Get by LEXSEE(R) Search Terms: 242 sw3d 32 Send to: PARISH, JUDY 2777 ALLEN PKWY STE 1000 HOUSTON, TX 77019-2165
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
LEXSEE 242 SW3D 32 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. TIBURCIO LEDESMA, JR., RESPONDENT NO. 05-0895 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 242 S.W.3d 32; 2007 Tex. LEXIS 1130; 51 Tex. Sup. J. 250; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P17,894 February 14, 2007, Argued December 21, 2007, Opinion Delivered SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Released for Publication February 1, 2008. PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 173 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3377 (Tex. App. Austin, 2005) COUNSEL: For Ford Motor Company, PETITIONER: Mr. Craig A. Morgan, Attorney at Law, Austin, TX.; Mr. Michael W. Eady, Mr. William Leonard Mennucci, For Tiburcio Ledesma, Jr., RESPONDENT: Mr. Kenneth Oden Jr., Austin, TX.; Mr. Brian Johnson Roark, Minton Burton Foster & Collins, Austin, TX.; Ms. Amanda Eileen Staine Peterson, Mr. Andy Taylor, For State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, INTERVENORS: Mr. Stephen E Garner, Stephen E. Garner, P.C., Houston, TX. JUDGES: JUSTICE WILLETT delivered the opinion of the Court. OPINION BY: Don R. Willett OPINION [*35] In this products liability case, Ford Motor Co. argues that the trial court reversibly erred in charging the jury by giving an incomplete definition of "manufacturing defect." We agree. Additionally, we hold that a frequently submitted definition of "producingcause" should no longer be used. We remand the case for a new trial under a jury charge that reflects our applicable caselaw, including our decision today. I. Background In March 1999, Tiburicio Ledesma, Jr. purchased a new Ford F-350 Super Duty pickup truck for his construction business. The truck had four rear tires, two on each side, surrounded by fiberglass fenders extending beyond the sides of the truck. On [**2] June 5, 1999, Ledesma turned onto a two- lane street in Austin and began to accelerate. He testified that after shifting gears the truck suddenly began to lurch, and he lost control, striking two parked cars, a Firebird and a Civic, on the side of the street. The truck then hit the street curb and came to rest. At the time of the accident, the truck's odometer read about 4,100 miles. Power from the truck engine is conveyed to the rear axle by the drive shaft, which connects the transmission in the front of the truck with the differential/rear axle assembly in the rear. As seen in the trial exhibit reproduced below, the rear-axle housing is attached to two sets of rear leaf springs by u-bolts, which wrap around the axle housing and are bolted to a rear spring
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 11

Ford v Ledesma TX 2007 - 1121PXT Time of Request:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online