David Lane and Mary Ann Lane v. General Motors Corporation

Second Circuit

David Lane and Mary Ann Lane v. General Motors Corporation

520 F.2d 528, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 1975

Docket588, Docket 74-1818

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 520 F.2d 528 (David Lane and Mary Ann Lane v. General Motors Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Lane and Mary Ann Lane v. General Motors Corporation, 520 F.2d 528, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441 (2d Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

David Lane, an employee of Jersey Central Power and Lighting Company, was injured when a heavy utility truck, driven by a fellow employee, in which Lane was riding as a passenger, sitting next to the right front door, rolled over after skidding on an icy road and striking a median curb. The door opened when the truck hit the curb; Lane was partially ejected from the truck and received serious injuries. 1

Lane and his wife sued (1) General Motors Corporation (the original manufacturer of the truck) alleging that the door latch was improperly designed, and (2) Pitman Manufacturing Co. (which had modified the truck by adding a hydraulic boom, a second cab and various appurtenances) alleging that the truck was top-heavy and unstable, due to the fault of Pitman or GMC, or both. 2

A jury in the Southern District of New York brought in a verdict for both defendants. On this appeal, plaintiffs-appellants limit themselves to that portion of the judgment dismissing their claims against GMC for improper design of the door latch. Their appellate counsel argues that the charge of the district judge was so fundamentally erroneous as it related to plaintiffs’ claim against GMC for the alleged improper design of the door latch that, despite the failure of trial counsel to object to it, this Court should order a new trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

The charge was hammered out in a long session with counsel for both sides, and included the instructions which ■plaintiffs’ trial counsel requested. Plaintiffs’ trial counsel took no exception to the charge; indeed, he stated on the record how fair it was. We have carefully examined the record and briefs and find no such fundamental error as would justify a reversal.

Affirmed.

1

. The truck was a total wreck.

2

. A claim against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was dismissed before trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

David Lane, an employee of Jersey Central Power and Lighting Company, was injured when a heavy utility truck, driven by a fellow employee, in which Lane was riding as a passenger, sitting next to the right front door, rolled over after skidding on an icy road and striking a median curb. The door opened when the truck hit the curb; Lane was partially ejected from the truck and received serious injuries. 1

Lane and his wife sued (1) General Motors Corporation (the original manufacturer of the truck) alleging that the door latch was improperly designed, and (2) Pitman Manufacturing Co. (which had modified the truck by adding a hydraulic boom, a second cab and various appurtenances) alleging that the truck was top-heavy and unstable, due to the fault of Pitman or GMC, or both. 2

A jury in the Southern District of New York brought in a verdict for both defendants. On this appeal, plaintiffs-appellants limit themselves to that portion of the judgment dismissing their claims against GMC for improper design of the door latch. Their appellate counsel argues that the charge of the district judge was so fundamentally erroneous as it related to plaintiffs’ claim against GMC for the alleged improper design of the door latch that, despite the failure of trial counsel to object to it, this Court should order a new trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

The charge was hammered out in a long session with counsel for both sides, and included the instructions which ■plaintiffs’ trial counsel requested. Plaintiffs’ trial counsel took no exception to the charge; indeed, he stated on the record how fair it was. We have carefully examined the record and briefs and find no such fundamental error as would justify a reversal.

Affirmed.

1

. The truck was a total wreck.

2

. A claim against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was dismissed before trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 F.2d 528, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-lane-and-mary-ann-lane-v-general-motors-corporation-ca2-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack