what's the number of times the letter "o" appears in:
581 f2d 384 verge v. ford motor co ford motor co
581 f.2d 384
jesus garcia verge and the commissioner of labor of the
government of the virgin islands
v.
ford motor co., elgin-leach corp., leach co., isla verde
sales, inc. and john doe corp.
appeal of ford motor co.
no. 77-1064.
united states court of appeals, third circuit.
argued april 25, 1978.
decided aug. 8, 1978.
james l. hymes, iii, grunert, stout, hymes & mayer, charlotte amalie, st. thomas, v. i., for defendant-appellant ford motor co.
j. michael spencer, christianstad, st. croix, v. i., for plaintiff-appellee jesus garcia verge.
before gibbons, garth and higginbotham, circuit judges.
opinion of the court
a. leon higginbotham, jr., circuit judge..1.2.3.4..
bexiga, supra, 60 n.j. at 410, 290 a.2d at 285.5).6.7
the judgment of the district court will be reversed with instructions to grant the judgment n. o. v. in favor of ford.
restatement (2d) of torts exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and
(b) the user or consumer has not brought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
in order to more closely track the language of 402a the issue can be rephrased in terms of whether the truck reached the consumer without "substantial change" or whether the truck was in a "defective condition" when it left ford's hands. such rephrasing is, however, of little assistance in determining whether ford should be held liable for not installing the warning device here
the following is the text of the question asked plaintiff's expert, mr. cline, by plaintiff's counsel, mr. spencer, and the ensuing cross-examination on this issue by defendant's counsel by mr. hymes:
mr. spencer: do you know whether or not back in 1970, or 1971, what the custom in the industry was, with respect to the installation of these devices? in other words, those that did it, did the manufacturer of the frame do it, or did the body builders do it?
mr. cline: from my knowledge, the orders for such trucks would be placed with the truck sales agency, who would then supply the truck with the type of body, the compactor body that was specified, along with any alarm devices which were required.
mr. spencer: all right, thank you mr. cline.
mr. hymes: mr. cline, i had a little difficulty hearing your last answer. did i understand you to say that in 1970, that the order for such a device as this, would come from the sales agency?
mr. cline: it was my, i meant to imply that the order for such a alarm would be placed with a sales agency selling trucks.
mr. hymes: and the person that wants to buy it tells the sales agency what he wants on his compacting unit?
mr. cline: he will give him size compactor that he will require for his needs, and any other special equipment he might want on it.
mr. hymes: and included among the special equipment would be a device such as that?
mr. cline: i don't consider this a special equipment, because it fills a need. when you speak of compactors you have an inherent need for backup alarm device, which has been recognized for many, many years.
mr. hymes: well, in 1970 was such a device like this standard equipment in the industry, on this type of vehicle?
mr. cline: i haven't made a survey to know whether it is, but it comes with every vehicle that is sold.
although the court in bexiga, seems to distinguish between strict liability and negligence liability for product design, we do not consider the distinction of significance in this context
we do not suggest that ford could not foresee that its f-700 chassis would be converted for use as a garbage truck. we emphasize only that leach was in a much better position than ford to incorporate the safety features necessitated by such a use
on appeal, ford also argued that the district court erred in: (1) not submitting the issue of assumption of risk to the jury; and (2) failing to submit to the jury special interrogatories in order to ascertain the comparative responsibility of each defendant, pursuant to an extension to product liability cases of the doctrines of gomes v. brodhurst, 394 f.2d 465 (3d cir. 1967), codified at 5 v.i.c. § 1451 (1973). given our disposition of the case, we do not reach these issues
user
In that passage, there are 234 occurrences of the letter "o."
assistant