Green v. Denney
Oregon Court of Appeals
742 P.2d 639 (1987)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Steven Green (plaintiff) was driving his Ford Pinto with his wife when he hit a horse on the highway. The horse hit the roof rail, or “header,” at the top of the windshield on the passenger side, collapsing it and killing Green’s wife instantly. After settling with the horse’s owner, Clemens Denney (codefendant), Green pursued a products-liability claim for defective design of the Pinto’s roof against Ford Motor Company (codefendant). The evidence showed that Ford designed the roof unusually by eliminating a support beam and numerous welds to make the metal thinner and accommodate a “lighting” hole in the middle panel. Ford also had trouble testing its design. Green offered evidence showing that accidents involving hitting large animals like horses are common and foreseeable. Green’s expert testified that Ford could have reinforced the roof so it would not collapse on the passenger’s head, and that the amount of force from a horse falling on the roof was less than that required for the Pinto to pass a federal safety test. The trial court refused to grant Ford a directed verdict, and the jury found for Green. Ford appealed, arguing it was entitled to a directed verdict because the accident and resulting injury were too bizarre for a reasonable manufacturer to foresee.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.