Robert R. McClung v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation

472 F.2d 240, 11 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1164, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11985
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 1973
Docket72-1257
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 472 F.2d 240 (Robert R. McClung v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert R. McClung v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation, 472 F.2d 240, 11 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1164, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11985 (4th Cir. 1973).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

We affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court. 333 F.Supp. 17 (S. D.W.Va.1971).

In this diversity case, we are not free to fashion a rule for West Virginia which accords with our preferences. We must examine available materials to predict, as best we can, what the West Virginia Supreme Court would do if presented with this same question.

That court has not considered an automobile manufacturer’s liability for the aggravation of injuries caused by a defect in the vehicle when the defect was not a contributing cause of the initial collision. Prior to the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code, however, that court had held there was no liability in tort or contract for personal injuries even though the defect in the vehicle caused the initial collision, if there was an express warranty limited to the replacement of defective parts. Payne v. Valley Motor Sales, Inc., 146 W.Va. 1063, 124 S.E.2d 622; Williams v. Chrysler Corporation, 148 W.Va. 655, 137 S.E.2d 225.

A court with so restrictive an approach to the allowance of damages for personal injuries when the defect in the vehicle was the immediate and direct cause of them is not likely to embrace a doctrine of recovery for enhancement of injuries in “second collision” situations when the alleged defect played no causative part in the initial collision.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Dr. Allan L. Bergano, D.D.S., P.C. v. City of Virginia Beach
241 F. Supp. 3d 690 (E.D. Virginia, 2017)
Gorham v. Guidant Mutual Insurance
80 F. Supp. 2d 540 (D. Maryland, 2000)
Blankenship v. General Motors Corp.
406 S.E.2d 781 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1991)
Kenneth I. Brown v. Herman Miller, Inc.
890 F.2d 443 (D.C. Circuit, 1989)
Duran v. General Motors Corp.
688 P.2d 779 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1984)
White v. American Motors Sales Corp.
550 F. Supp. 1287 (W.D. Virginia, 1982)
Kay Dehart Brandau v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
646 F.2d 128 (Fourth Circuit, 1981)
Sealey v. Ford Motor Co.
499 F. Supp. 475 (E.D. North Carolina, 1980)
Van Tine v. Nissan Motor Co.
463 F. Supp. 1274 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1979)
Terry Lee Stonehocker v. General Motors Corporation
587 F.2d 151 (Fourth Circuit, 1978)
Fox v. Ford Motor Co.
575 F.2d 774 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)
Isaacson v. Toyota Motor Sales, U. S. A., Inc.
438 F. Supp. 1 (E.D. North Carolina, 1976)
Ford Motor Company v. Evancho
327 So. 2d 201 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1976)
Anton v. Ford Motor Company
400 F. Supp. 1270 (S.D. Ohio, 1975)
Huddell v. Levin
395 F. Supp. 64 (D. New Jersey, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
472 F.2d 240, 11 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1164, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-r-mcclung-v-ford-motor-company-a-corporation-ca4-1973.