Dierks

Dierks v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 168·208 Cal. App. 3d 352·256 Cal. Rptr. 230
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 1, 1989A035546California2,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pollak, J.

Appellants were severely injured when the vehicle in which they were traveling rolled over in a tragic mishap on Highway 101. They appeal from the judgment entered in favor of the manufacturer, distributor and retail vendor of the car in which they were riding, following a jury’s special verdict that there was no defect in the design of the vehicle and that respondents were not negligent in testing the roof of the car, as appellants had alleged. Appellants assert errors by the trial court in refusing to instruct on additional theories of recovery, in admitting certain evidence, and in refusing to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because of insufficiency of the evidence. Finding no such errors, we affirm the judgment.

On August 7, 1982, the two appellants were passengers in a 1976 Dodge Colt designed and manufactured by respondent Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, distributed by respondent Chrysler Corporation and sold by respondent Hub City Dodge. While driving on Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo County, the driver of the vehicle swerved onto the unpaved median divider, lost control of the vehicle and the car rolled over once. As a result of the rollover, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.