The main issue in the case was about product liability, whether Ford Motor Company was liable for the injury that was caused by the alteration that had been made by the owners of the vehicle without their consent.
Holding: the court ruled in the favor of the defendant and plaintiffs complain were dismiss Rule of Law: the product alteration and modification defense apply when it is done without the manufacturer’s consent.
Reasoning: The court used several sources in order to come up with the reasoning. The court made reference to some cases, for instance, Correll v. Division of Social Services418 SE 2d 232 – NC: Supreme Court 1992. The general motor statute was also used to come to a conclusion about the manufacturer’s liability. This statute helped in knowing which party was liable even after the alteration had been made.
