FRED DAVID WILSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL GLENN WILSON, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue on appeal in this diversity case is whether, under the law of North Carolina, an automobile manufacturer may be held liable for defects in the design and manufacture of a vehicle which neither caused nor contributed to the cause of a collision, but served to exacerbate injuries sustained thereafter. See Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). This is a question of law, Dreisonstok v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 489 F. 2d 1066, 1069 (4th Cir. 1974), and has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court of that State (or by the intermediate appellate courts). Thus, it falls to the federal courts to forecast what the North Carolina Supreme Court would hold if presented with this issue. Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 87 S.Ct. 1776, 18 L.Ed.2d 886 (1967); McClung v. Ford Motor Company, 472 F. 2d 240 (4th Cir. 1973).
The district court, after a careful review of related State cases and of the several and divergent federal court determinations of the issue, ruled that the North Carolina Supreme Court would not hold a manufacturer liable for injuries arising from defects which neither caused nor contributed to the accident.
We find no reversible error in this conclusion and, for reasons sufficiently stated in its Memorandum and Order of April 9,1980, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. In the case of Seese, et al v. Volkswagenwerk AG, etc., 648 F. 2d 833 (3d Cir. 1981), the court, in a divided opinion, predicted that North Carolina would adopt the second crash theory. The dissent argued that even if the second crash theory were applicable, judgment for the plaintiff was subject to error. The rejection by North Carolina, however, in Smith v. Fiber Control Corporation, 300 N.C. 669, 268 S.E. 2d 504 (1980), of the principle of strict liability in tort fortifies our belief that if called upon the Supreme Court of North Carolina would also reject the second crash theory.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, 679 F.2d 336 (3d Cir. 1982)
-
Martin v. Volkswagen OF Am., Inc., 707 F.2d 823 (4th Cir. 1983)
-
S.S. v. Princeton House Charter Sch., Inc., 118 F. Supp. 2d 675 (M.D. Fla. 2012)…f Special Appeals, see Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. v. Neil, 160 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (4th Cir.1998), this Court must forecast the result that would be reached by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, were the question put to it. Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., 656 F.2d 960 (4th Cir.1981). Maryland has adhered strictly to a traditional classification of non-owners upon land with respect to the duties owed them by landowners, which range from the duty to use reasonable care to the duty to refrain from wilfully or wanto…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Est. of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1967)
- Dreisonstok v. Volkswagenwerk, 489 F.2d 1066 (4th Cir. 1974)
- Seese v. Volkswagenwerk A. G., 648 F.2d 833 (3d Cir. 1981)
- McCLUNG v. Ford Motor Co., 472 F.2d 240 (4th Cir. 1973)