Case Name: Robert R. McCLUNG, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1973-01-26
Citations: 472 F.2d 240
Docket Number: No. 72-1257
Parties: Robert R. McCLUNG, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 472
Pages: 240–242

Head Matter:
Robert R. McCLUNG, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
No. 72-1257.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 4, 1972.
Decided Jan. 26, 1973.
Donald R. Wilson, Charleston, W. Va. (Preiser & Wilson, Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellant.
Donald D. Hodson, Beekley, W. Va. (Bowers, File, Hodson & Payne, Beck-ley, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court. 333 F.Supp. 17 (S. D.W.Va.1971).
In this diversity case, we are not free to fashion a rule for West Virginia which accords with our preferences. We must examine available materials to predict, as best we can, what the West Virginia Supreme Court would do if presented with this same question.
That court has not considered an automobile manufacturer's liability for the aggravation of injuries caused by a defect in the vehicle when the defect was not a contributing cause of the initial collision. Prior to the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code, however, that court had held there was no liability in tort or contract for personal injuries even though the defect in the vehicle caused the initial collision, if there was an express warranty limited to the replacement of defective parts. Payne v. Valley Motor Sales, Inc., 146 W.Va. 1063, 124 S.E.2d 622; Williams v. Chrysler Corporation, 148 W.Va. 655, 137 S.E.2d 225.
A court with so restrictive an approach to the allowance of damages for personal injuries when the defect in the vehicle was the immediate and direct cause of them is not likely to embrace a doctrine of recovery for enhancement of injuries in "second collision" situations when the alleged defect played no causative part in the initial collision.
Affirmed.