The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided to follow a federal court’s example and will allow a car company to argue a controversial theory of injury during roll-over accidents that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration disavowed in 2009.
In its Dec. 24, 2013, ruling in Parr v. Ford Motor, a split three-judge Superior Court panel upheld a trial court’s decision to dismiss post-trial motions contending that Ford’s theory of injury was inadmissible because the NHTSA had determined that roof crush and not “diving” and “torso augmentation,” which Ford had argued, cause head and neck injuries to belted passengers. The argument presented an issue of apparent first impression for the Superior Court.
