Betty Potter v. Ford Motor Company - Concurring
This text of Betty Potter v. Ford Motor Company - Concurring (Betty Potter v. Ford Motor Company - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 4, 2006 Session
BETTY POTTER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cumberland County No. CV003993 John J. Maddux, Jr., Judge
No. E2005-01578-COA-R3-CV - FILED JUNE 21, 2006
CONCURRING OPINION
While I agree with Ford, that Restatement (Third) of Torts § 2, comment f, requires: “To establish a prima facie case of defect, the plaintiff must prove the availability of a technologically feasible and practical alternative design that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff’s harm . . .”, unless and until Tennessee adopts Restatement (Third) of Torts on this issue, Judge Lee in my view, has correctly summarized the state of Tennessee law on this issue. Accordingly, I concur in her Opinion in affirming the Trial Court.
______________________________ HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Betty Potter v. Ford Motor Company - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betty-potter-v-ford-motor-company-concurring-tennctapp-2006.