# Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor Company

> Tennessee Supreme Court · September 17, 1973 · 503 S.W.2d 516

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863083

## Case

- **Full name:** Ann D. ELLITHORPE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Et Al.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 17, 1973
- **Citations:** 503 S.W.2d 516; 1973 Tenn. LEXIS 444
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** McCanless, Dyer, Chattin, Hum-Phreys, Fones
- **Cited by:** 70 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated by McIntyre v. Balentine, 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 336 (1992).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863083

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- noting that manufacturer is not required to build accident- proof products
- discussing strict products liability

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863083. Public record. Not legal advice.