Ford Motor Co. v. Pool’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Manufacturing defect cases involve products which are flawed, i.e., which do not conform to the manufacturer’s own specifications, and are not identical to their mass-produced siblings. The flaw theory is based upon a fundamental consumer expectancy: that a mass-produced product will not differ from its siblings in a manner that makes it more dangerous than the others. Defective design cases, however, are not based on consumer expectancy, but on the manufacturer’s design of a product which makes it unreasonably dangerous, even though not flawed in its manufacture. Green v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 274 F.3d 263 , 268 (5th Cir.2001) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Pool, 688 S.W.2d 879 , 881 (Tex.Ct.App.1985), affd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.1986)). 7”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Casey v. Toyota Motor Engineering Manufacturing North America, Inc.

2. “Request 1: Admit that the cylinder was defective at the time it left the possession of Christopher Manufacturing Company. Request 2: Admit that such defective condition was a producing cause of the occurrence in question. Request 3: Admit that the elevator was defective at the time it left the possession of Christopher Manufacturing Company. Request 4: Admit that such defect was a producing cause of the occurrence in question. Request 5: Admit that Javier Salinas suffered physical injuries in the occurrence in question. Request 6: Admit that Luther Durden suffered physical injuries in the occurrence in question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. USX Corp. v. Salinas

3. “Because statutes prohibiting driving while intoxicated and speeding are safety statutes setting minimum standards of care, the jury was not permitted to decide that either of those acts did not constitute negligence. Thus, the jury's finding that Pool was not negligent can be sustained only if there is sufficient evidence that Pool was not, in fact, intoxicated and was not, in fact, speeding at the time his vehicle left the road.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pool v. Ford Motor Co.