# Tyndall v. Ford Motor Co.

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · November 8, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2677890

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 8, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2677890

## Opinion text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 415PA12

FILED 8 NOVEMBER 2013

AMOS TYNDALL, as Guardian ad Litem for CHE-VAL BATTS

v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and ALEJANDRO ORTIZ RIOS

On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review orders entered

by the Court of Appeals on 28 August 2012 dismissing defendant Ford Motor

Company’s appeal from and denying defendant Ford Motor Company’s petition for

writ of certiorari to review an order denying this defendant’s motion to dismiss

entered by Judge Thomas H. Lock on 25 January 2012 in Superior Court, Nash

County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 15 October 2013.

Martin & Jones, PLLC, by Hoyt G. Tessener; Langdon & Emison, by J. Kent
Emison, pro hac vice, and Jessica M. Agnelly, pro hac vice; and Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. and Pressly M. Millen, for
plaintiff-appellee.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, by Adam H. Charnes and Richard D.
Dietz; Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan L.L.P., by Kirk
G. Warner and Christopher R. Kiger; and Bowman and Brooke LLP, by Robert
L. Wise, pro hac vice, for defendant-appellant Ford Motor Company.

Pinto Coates Kyre & Brown, PLLC, by Kenneth Kyre, Jr., for North Carolina
Association of Defense Attorneys and North Carolina Chamber, amici curiae.

Carlton Fields, P.A., by Wendy F. Lumish, pro hac vice, and Alina Alonso
Rodriguez, pro hac vice; and Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by Jon
Berkelhammer, for Product Liability Advisory Council, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.
TYNDALL V. FORD

Opinion of the Court

Justice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting

to affirm and three members voting to reverse the orders of the Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, the orders of the Court of Appeals are left undisturbed.

AFFIRMED.

-2-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2677890. Public record. Not legal advice.