Connection lost
Server error
Schultz v. Ford Motor Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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.
Schultz v. Ford Motor Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
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
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
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