Plaintiffs in a rollover case should have been able to introduce evidence contesting a theory of injury that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration disavowed in 2009, the plaintiffs’ attorney argued before an en banc Superior Court panel in Philadelphia last week.
Richard Angino of Angino and Lutz, who represented the plaintiffs in Parr v. Ford Motor, argued that the trial court had improperly based its decision to preclude NHTSA documents that discounted the defendant’s injury theory solely because the study had been performed after the plaintiff’s accident occurred.
