Schultz v. Ford Motor Co. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A manufacturer’s compliance with federal safety standards creates a rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness. The court held that under Indiana Evidence Rule 301, this presumption has “continuing effect,” allowing a jury instruction on a permissible inference of non-defectiveness even after the plaintiff introduces contrary evidence.
Legal Significance: Establishes that Indiana Evidence Rule 301 rejects the pure “bursting bubble” theory of presumptions. A presumption’s “continuing effect” allows a jury to be instructed on a permissible inference derived from the presumption, even after rebuttal evidence is presented.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Richard Schultz was rendered a quadriplegic when the roof of his 1995 Ford Explorer collapsed during a low-speed, rollover accident. Schultz and his wife sued Ford Motor Company, alleging defective roof design and negligence under the Indiana Product Liability Act. At trial, Ford presented evidence that the Explorer complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216, the applicable federal regulation for roof crush resistance. The Schultzes, in turn, presented expert evidence tending to show the roof design was defective despite this compliance. The trial court, relying on Ind. Code § 34-20-5-1, instructed the jury that if it found Ford had proven compliance with FMVSS 216, it “may presume” the Explorer was not defective and Ford was not negligent. The instruction also stated that the plaintiffs could rebut this presumption with evidence of a defect. The jury returned a verdict for Ford. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the instruction constituted reversible error because the presumption should have disappeared once the Schultzes offered rebuttal evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Indiana Evidence Rule 301, which gives a presumption “continuing effect even though contrary evidence is received,” permit a trial court to instruct a jury on the rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness from compliance with government standards after the plaintiff has introduced evidence to rebut that presumption?
Yes. The trial court’s jury instruction was proper. The “continuing effect” language Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Indiana Evidence Rule 301, which gives a presumption “continuing effect even though contrary evidence is received,” permit a trial court to instruct a jury on the rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness from compliance with government standards after the plaintiff has introduced evidence to rebut that presumption?
Conclusion
This case establishes that under Indiana's unique evidentiary rule, a rebuttable presumption Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Rule
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 301, a presumption imposes on the opposing party Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Legal Analysis
The Indiana Supreme Court conducted a thorough analysis of the law of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Indiana Evidence Rule 301 rejects the “bursting bubble” theory; a presumption