Go to navigation Go to content
Toll-Free: 877-BRENT-ADAMS
Phone: (919) 781-7590
Brent Adams & Associates

Court Rules Injuries Not Required In Product Liability Suit

Blog Category:
Brent Adams
Comments (0)
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that a class of plaintiffs alleging that Ford Motor Company knowingly produced vehicles with door-handle systems that were defective were not required to claim accident-related personal injuries or manifested defect in order to file suit under Chapter 93A.


In the case, the automaker argued that because none of the plaintiffs claimed to have been involved in an accident in which a door latch failed, paid for repairs, or sold their cars at a loss, they had not claimed “actual” injury.


However, the SJC disagreed, saying that they were not claiming personal injury or property damage. Instead, the court said the defendants were allegedly knowingly manufacturing, selling, and refusing to recall vehicles not in compliance with Federal safety regulations, a practice which is unfair or deceptive and has economically injured the plaintiffs.


However, the case was dismissed because the court found that that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently allege failure by the defendants’ vehicles to meet Federal regulations.

Category: General

There are no comments.

Post a comment

Post a Comment to "Court Rules Injuries Not Required In Product Liability Suit"

To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."


Email:* (will not be published)


Notify me of follow-up comments via email.