# Potter v. Ford Motor Co.

> Court of Appeals of Tennessee · June 21, 2006 · 213 S.W.3d 264

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522611

## Case

- **Full name:** Betty POTTER, Et Al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** June 21, 2006
- **Citations:** 213 S.W.3d 264; 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 409; 2006 WL 1698971
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Franks
- **Judges:** Judge Sharon G. Lee
- **Cited by:** 17 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/9522611

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that “the intervening cause doctrine is inapplicable where the alleged intervening, superseding cause is the plaintiffs own negligent conduct”

## Opinion text

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J.,
concurring.
While I agree with Ford, that Restatement (Third) of Torts § 2, comment f, requires: “To establish a prima facie case of defect, the plaintiff must prove the availability of a technologically feasible and practical alternative design that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiffs harm ... ”, unless and until Tennessee adopts Restatement (Third) of Torts on this issue, Judge Lee in my view, has correctly summarized the state of Tennessee law on this issue. Accordingly, I concur in her Opinion in affirming the Trial Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522611. Public record. Not legal advice.