FIN444 Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

FIN444 - Case Study ExampleHe spent about a quarter an hour throwing rocks and smasher a several vehicles. Daniel threw a chunk of concrete weighing to the highest degree three pounds at a Navistar tractor pulling twain trailers driven by William. It broke the windshield and hit him in the forehead causing brain injuries. He lost control of the motortruck and it hit the tidy wall. Daniel was convicted of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon or with force likely to cause ample bodily injury and sentenced to 12 years in prison.William and Barbara brought suit against Navistar (The manufacturer) and the State of California. They sued Navistar for product liability, claiming the trucks windshield was imperfect because it failed to protect William from the rock. They also sort other punitive measures on the grounds that the manufacturer knew the truck was defective.Plaintiffs offered two alternative windshield designs. They insisted the windshield should have been made of b i-laminated glass known as glass-plastic instead of it beingness a single windshield glass. Second, plaintiffs. They also contended the rake angle of the windshield should have been a safer to a greater extent swept-back in design, to act as a deflector of the rock.The manufacturer of the windshield and the supplier of the glass, moved for summary judgment, assert federal law preempted a state tort action for products liability. The manufacturers demonstrated that the windshield in the truck had a bonded plastic between two layers of glass. They asserted that it was manufactured in accordance with Federal go Vehicle Safety Standard 205 (FMVSS 205). fn. 4 FMVSS 205 also authorized the use of glass-plastic in windshields. The trial motor hotel granted both motions for summary judgment, finding the plaintiffs claims were preempted by federal law. In light of these rulings, Navistar moved in limine to exclude any evidence of glass-plastic windshields. The trial court granted the moti on. It is also noted that the insurance