Ray Norton v. Ford Motor Company

Fifth Circuit

Ray Norton v. Ford Motor Company

470 F.2d 992

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1973

Docket72-1570

StatusPublished

This text of 470 F.2d 992 (Ray Norton v. Ford Motor Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ray Norton v. Ford Motor Company, 470 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The jury impliedly found that the spindle nut on the right front wheel of the Plaintiff’s car was in a defective condition when the car was delivered to the Plaintiff from the Defendant, the Ford Motor Company. The District Court then rendered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for $155,096.82. In this appeal the Defendant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding.

On a review of the record, we hold that there was ample evidence to support the jury finding. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge determined that the Plaintiff had produced enough evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury under the prevailing standards of Texas jurisprudence. “Once the Court has determined that the Plaintiff has brought forward sufficient evidence to warrant jury submission, it then becomes the function of the jury to strike the balance between the parties.” Ford Motor Company v. Mathis, 5 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 267; Employers Mutual Casualty Co. of Des Moines v. Mosqueda, 5 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 609; Necaise v. Chrysler Corporation, 5 Cir., 1964, 335 F.2d 562; Darryl v. Ford Motor Co., Tex., 1969, 440 S.W.2d 630; Standard Motor Co. v. Blood, Tex.Ct.Civ.App., 1964, 380 S.W.2d 651.

This leaves only the attack on the “sealed container” jury charge which we find unpersuasive.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The jury impliedly found that the spindle nut on the right front wheel of the Plaintiff’s car was in a defective condition when the car was delivered to the Plaintiff from the Defendant, the Ford Motor Company. The District Court then rendered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for $155,096.82. In this appeal the Defendant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding.

On a review of the record, we hold that there was ample evidence to support the jury finding. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge determined that the Plaintiff had produced enough evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury under the prevailing standards of Texas jurisprudence. “Once the Court has determined that the Plaintiff has brought forward sufficient evidence to warrant jury submission, it then becomes the function of the jury to strike the balance between the parties.” Ford Motor Company v. Mathis, 5 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 267; Employers Mutual Casualty Co. of Des Moines v. Mosqueda, 5 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 609; Necaise v. Chrysler Corporation, 5 Cir., 1964, 335 F.2d 562; Darryl v. Ford Motor Co., Tex., 1969, 440 S.W.2d 630; Standard Motor Co. v. Blood, Tex.Ct.Civ.App., 1964, 380 S.W.2d 651.

This leaves only the attack on the “sealed container” jury charge which we find unpersuasive.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F.2d 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-norton-v-ford-motor-company-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack