Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207638/Ford-Motor-Company-v-J-W-McDavid-259-F-2d-261-4th-Cir-1958
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:49:00+00:00

Document:
Certiorari Denied December 8, 1958.
H. Fletcher Padget, Jr., and N. A. Turner, Columbia, S. C., for appellant.
Augustus T. Graydon, Columbia, S. C., and John C. West, Camden, S. C.
(C. T. Graydon, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.
the automobile, which ran into a ditch, and the plaintiff was thrown to the floor.
presents the question of the sufficiency of the proof to support the verdict.
tire was less extensive, but greatly excessive for the distance travelled.
few hundred miles of travel.
the center line of the tread and will reduce the useful life of the tread.
combination of excessive toe-in and excessive camber in the right front wheel.
existed at the time of the accident.
of Clem Davis, Inc., not of Ford Motor Company.
passed through during the preceding four-hour period.
their checks would have revealed the fact and it would have been corrected.
most casual inspection at 1287 miles.
permanent that it may not become maladjusted in the course of normal use.
lock it and the attendants wouldn't have to move it."
of the dash, but, apparently, she made no mention of screeching tires.
that the factory setting of the camber was excessive in this instance.
the damage they had sustained in the accident. Unlike the situation in Pierce v.
this came to be, and when, is left to surmise.
completely undone by Clem Davis, Inc.
during Mrs. McDavid's use of the automobile.
several occasions upon which the wheel alignment was tested and checked.
of the jury to resolve conflicting inferences from circumstantial evidence.
Delk v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 180 S.C. 436, 186 S.E. 383; Smith v.
General Motors Corporation, 5 Cir., 227 F. 2d 210.
F.2d 210; Lovas v. General Motors Corp., 6 Cir., 212 F.2d 805; Davlin v.
Corp., 235 N.C. 88, 68 S.E.2d 855; Hirst v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 261 Mass.
Stores, Inc., 19 Conn.Sup. 293, 112 A.2d 507; Kalinowski v. Joseph T.
Ryerson & Son, Inc., 242 App.Div. 43, 272 N.Y.S. 759.
the entry of judgment for the defendant.
F.2d 404; Sanders v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 3 Cir., 204 F.2d 436; Moran v.
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 193 S.C. 51, 7 S.E.2d 641, 127 A.L.R. 1185; Hunter v.
a defect in a tractor, but approving recognition was accorded the general rule.
those properly using it. * * *."
Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 302 P.2d 665.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.