holding “collisions are clearly foreseeable by the manufacturer [who] therefore has a duty to minimize the harm of inevitable accidents by utilizing reasonably safe design”
How later courts described this case
- holding “collisions are clearly foreseeable by the manufacturer [who] therefore has a duty to minimize the harm of inevitable accidents by utilizing reasonably safe design”
- “Regardless of which label is used,,‘contributory negligence’ or ‘assumption of risk’, the courts have generally held that ordinary lack of care is not a defense, while ‘voluntarily and unreasonably proceeding to encounter a known danger’ is a defense.”
- noting that manufacturer is not required to build accident- proof products
- contact with prongs on horn button
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated by McIntyre v. Balentine, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (1992)
503 S.W.2d 516, 521-22 (Tenn. 1973) (similar), abrogated by McIntyre, 833 S.W.2d at 54
The opinion
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
The appellees, Ford Motor Company and others, have filed a petition to rehear in this case, setting forth arguments that allege that this Court inadvertently misconceived the issues. We have considered the petition and find it without merit. Petitions for rehearing are governed by Rule 32 of this Court. That rule provides:
"A rehearing will be refused where no new argument is made, and no new authority adduced, and no material fact is pointed out as overlooked.”
In Sullivan v. Harpeth Development Corp., 218 Tenn. 107 , 401 S.W.2d 195 [1966], it was said:
“(T)he office of petition to rehear is to call to the attention of the Court matters overlooked; not to re-argue those things which the losing party supposes were improperly decided, after the Court has given the same full consideration. This Court has said, and says again, that a petition for a rehearing should never be used for the purpose of re-arguing the case on the points already considered and determined; unless some new and decisive authority has been discovered, which was overlooked by this Court.”
The petition to rehear is denied.