Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
283 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2002)


Facts

Jarvis (plaintiff) sued Ford Motor Co. (Ford) (defendant) for a minivan design defect under theories of negligence and strict liability. The parties proposed jury instructions to the district court before trial, requesting the judge instruct the jury on negligence and strict products liability. The judge sent the parties a letter asking for clarification and pointing out a footnote in Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 170 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999), where a plaintiff withdrew a negligence claim as “duplicative of his strict liability claim.” The judge mentioned the “substantial overlap in the elements” of both causes of action. Jarvis maintained that instructions should be given on both theories. Ford replied by letter that it believed instructions should be given on only one theory, not both. However, at the pretrial conference, Ford’s attorney told the court it wanted the negligence instruction left in “for now.” Ford did not object to the instruction, and the jury was charged that it could find Ford liable for negligence, strict liability, or both. The jury returned a verdict finding Ford liable for negligence but not strict liability. Ford moved for post-judgment relief, asserting that the verdicts were inconsistent. The district court granted Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JNOV), concluding that Ford did not waive its objection to the jury instruction as it was preserved in its letter to the court. Jarvis appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.