Pool v. Ford Motor Co.
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Decided
- April 2, 1986
- Docket
- C-4097
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 2,766 timesOverruled on other grounds (verified)Overruled on other grounds (verified) · Coleman v. Klöckner & Co. AG
What later courts said
- concluding that court of appeals erred in holding that negligence per se applied to speeding under article 6701d, section 171(b) of former Texas Revised Civil Statutes — Maricella Benavente v. Daniel Granger and Beverly Granger (2009)
- holding that an inappropriately phrased point should be construed as raising a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence when the error is “readily apparent from the argument briefed” — in the Interest of A.O., a Child (2007)
- holding that an inappropriately phrased point should be construed as raising a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence when the error is A readily apparent from the argument briefed @ — in the Interest of A.O., a Child (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING KILGARLIN, Justice.
Our opinion of February 12,1986 is withdrawn and the following is substituted.
This is a products liability action arising out of an alleged defect that caused Ronnie Pool’s Ford pick-up truck to go out of control. Pool sustained serious head injuries when his truck ran off the road and collided with a tree. Pool and his wife brought this suit against Ford Motor Company alleging design and/or manufacturing defects which caused the right rear suspension system U-bolt to fall off, which, in turn, caused the accident.
Cite this
Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (1986)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.