Opinion ID: 344770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: refusal to give requested jury instructions

Text: 17 In seeking reversal of the verdict for appellee, appellants allege that various errors were committed by the trial judge. We consider here only appellants' contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give the following two requested instructions: 5 Plaintiffs' Prayer for Instruction No. 2 18 In determining whether or not either or both defendants breached the express warranty that the Thunderbird was free from defects, or that it was of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose for which it was intended, you are instructed that plaintiffs need not prove a specific defect. It is sufficient, if you find from the evidence that the motor vehicle in question went out of control, causing the accident, as a result of some mechanical failure due to an obvious or hidden defect in the car which existed at the time it left Ford Motor Company. 19 The law does not require plaintiffs to prove the mechanical failure by specific physical evidence, nor does it require plaintiffs to prove exactly what part of the car was defective, as plaintiffs may prove the mechanical failure solely by circumstantial evidence. Plaintiffs' Prayer for Instruction No. 4 20 If you determine, after considering all of the evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the accident which took the lives of Billy Stewart, Norman Rich, and William Cathey, would not have occurred in the ordinary course of things but for the existence of a defect in the vehicle operated by decedent Billy Stewart, then you can infer that the cause of the accident arose from a defect in the manufacture or distribution of the vehicle. 6 21