Ford Motor Co. v. Hetsler
In a products liability case arising from a Mustang that exploded and catastrophically injured its owner, Ford appealed the denial of its directed verdict motion and the application of the Cassisi inference (product malfunction during normal use creates a prima facie defect case). The Fifth DCA withdrew its earlier PCA and issued a written opinion affirming solely on the ground that Ford's initial brief was insufficiently briefed y, conclassertions, misdescribed authority, unsupported record citations, and failure to confront the trial court's actual rulings. A special concurrence would have also affirmed on the merits, holding the Cassisi inference properly applied.
Key facts
- Ford Motor Company appealed the trial court's denial of its directed verdict motion in a products liability case involving a Mustang that exploded and caused catastrophic injuries to its owner.
- The trial court applied the Cassisi inference, allowing the jury to infer a product defect based on the vehicle's malfunction during normal use, and the jury returned a verdict against Ford.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a rare, detailed appellate statement on what constitutes insufficient briefing \u2014 useful ammunition for appellees seeking affirmance on waiver grounds and a cautionary roadmap for appellants: cite the… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.