BUELL-WILSON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Filed 4/10/08
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BENETTA BUELL-WILSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al, Defendants and Appellants. | D045154, D045579 (Super. Ct. No. GIC800836) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 10, 2008, is modified as follows:
1. At page 87, the last sentence on that page is modified to delete the following language: "or improper argument of counsel."
2. At page 87, following the last sentence on that page, a footnote 14 is added, stating:
In its petition for rehearing Ford asserts that our opinion erroneously states that counsel conceded at oral argument that Ford failed to raise instructional error in the first appeal. However, a review of the oral argument record shows otherwise. First, at 9:20 a.m., the following exchange took place:
"[The Court:] Are you saying there was instructional error at the trial?
"[Ford's Counsel:] Yes.
"[The Court:] Did you raise it in your first appeal?
"[Ford's Counsel:] In our first appeal, Your Honor, we focused on the third party harm issue, but we focused on the Bronco II --
"[The Court:] So the answer is, 'No'?
"[Ford's Counsel:] The answer is, 'No,' we did not specifically raise the instructional issue in our first appeal . . . ."
In rebuttal, the following exchange took place, beginning at 9:51 a.m.:
"[The Court:] But did you complain about instructional error in your appeal?
"[Ford's Counsel:] We, we did not complain about it in our, in the first go‑round."
All subsequent footnotes are renumbered accordingly.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellants' petition for rehearing is denied.
McConnell, P. J.
Copies to: All parties
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
