Brandon Stroud was driving a golf cart made by Textron, Inc., to transport guest
ID: 387753 • Letter: B
Question
Brandon Stroud was driving a golf cart made by Textron, Inc., to transport guests at a Christmas party. The golf cart did not have lights, but Textron did not warn against using it on public roads at night. When Stroud attempted to cross a road at 8:30 p.m., his golf cart was struck by a vehicle driven by Joseph Thornley. Stroud was killed. At the time of his death, Stroud was (unhappily) married to his second wife, Julie. They owned a home, which they had purchased several years earlier, taking title as joints tenants by the entirety. Stroud had 3 adult children from his previous marriage to Wendy. Stroud’s will, which he had just revised several weeks before his death, left all of his real and personal property (including the home he owned with Julie) to his children, specifically excluding his wife from any inheritance. The will appointed his son Michael as Executor. Stroud’s $250,000 life insurance policy named his ex-wife Wendy as the beneficiary. Stroud’s estate filed a suit against Textron, alleging strict product liability and product liability based on negligence and seeking $5,000,000 in damages. The charge was that the golf cart was defective and unreasonably dangerous. Stroud’s wife Julie filed a petition contesting the terms of Stroud’s will that left the home to his children and excluded her. Stroud’s Executor Michael sought to have the $250,000 life insurance policy paid to the estate. Discuss Textron’s best defense(s) against the estate’s lawsuit. What can Julie argue to support her challenge(s) against her late husband’s will? Who should receive the proceeds of the life insurance policy and why?
Explanation / Answer
Textron’s defense
In this case the charge against Textron is of strict liability. The claim is that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous. However, if we review the facts, we can see that Brandon Stroud was using the golf cart as a transportation vehicle. It is not supposed to be used outside a golf course. By using the golf cart out of the golf course, Stroud knew undertook the risk knowingly or negligently. More over since the product is not meant to be used as transportation vehicle, the best defense for Textron in this case is
Julie’s challenge
Julie was unhappily married to Brandon and naturally, was left out of the will. However, we know from the facts of the case that they purchased the home few years earlier and took titles as joint tenant in entirety. This means that in case of one party’s death, the other is entitled to his/her entire share of the property. Being tenants of entirety is supposed to automatically give right of the entire property to the surviving partner. While Julie may not be able to argue about the life insurance policy but she is legally entitled to the property (the house).
Julie can argue with the title of tenant in entirety in order to win the house in spite of the will.
Stroud’s life insurance
Stroud’s life insurance names Wendy as the primary beneficiary. However, they have been divorced and it is not mentioned in the case if Stroud had taken any steps to change the beneficiary. Thus we can move with the assumption that Wendy is still named the beneficiary. In this case, we need to refer to precedent case of ‘Hadfield v. Prudential Insurance Company’ and consider the revocation-upon-divorce statute. With this consideration, the proceeds of the life insurance policy should go to Stroud’s estate. Thus Michael should be receiving the proceeds.