A new truck, manufactured by General Motors Corp. (GMC), had a defective alternator that caused it to stall on a busy highway. The driver set up emergency flares around the stalled truck, but congestion on the highway made them difficult to see. Davis did not see the flares, drove his car into the back of the stalled truck, and was killed by the impact. His widow sues GMC. GMC moved for summary judgment, alleging (1) no duty to Davis, (2) no factual causation, and (3) no foreseeable harm. Should summary judgment be granted?

Question

Gerald Levine

Business

11 October, 14:30

A new truck, manufactured by General Motors Corp. (GMC), had a defective alternator that caused it to stall on a busy highway. The driver set up emergency flares around the stalled truck, but congestion on the highway made them difficult to see. Davis did not see the flares, drove his car into the back of the stalled truck, and was killed by the impact. His widow sues GMC. GMC moved for summary judgment, alleging (1) no duty to Davis, (2) no factual causation, and (3) no foreseeable harm. Should summary judgment be granted?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Alexis Horton · Answer 1

Answer:The summary judgement moved by GMC should and must not be granted because this accident occurred in the first place due to a manufacturing error on their side which cost Mr Davis his life. His widow should take them to court and make them pay through their nose. No one should have to lose a family because some company failed to properly carry out quality check on their products.