Deere v. Ford

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Barnes

    196 Wn. App. 261 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    The statute did not define β€œmotor vehicle,” but the court held a riding lawnmower not to be a motor vehicle. ΒΆ27 In Deere & Co. v. Ford, 434 Mass. 223, 747 N.E.2d 1208 (2001), the court addressed whether its state's statutory scheme regulating the relationship between motor vehicle manufacturers and dealers applied to the relationship between Deere and one of its franchisees. Deere manufactured riding lawnmowers and other lawn equipment.

  2. MacLean v. Hingham Mut. Fire

    51 Mass. App. Ct. 870 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 11 times
    In MacLean v. Hinghman Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 750 N.E.2d 494 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001), for example, the issue was whether the injuries caused by an all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") fell within the motor vehicle liability exclusion provided in the homeowner's insurance policy.

    " Compare Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vynorious, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 121, 124-125 (1993). Recently, inDeere Co. v. Ford, 434 Mass. 223 (2001), the court reiterated that "[n]o motor vehicles are required by the terms of c. 90 to be registered simply by virtue of their status as such. Instead, c. 90 prohibits certain uses unless the motor vehicle is registered.

  3. Coady Corp. v. Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc.

    346 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Mass. 2004)   Cited 9 times

    In Tober, the SJC recognized that Chapter 93B responded to "long-recognized problems including that of the coercion of dealers by automobile manufacturers through such means as the cutting off or purposeful manipulation of the supply of cars." Tober, 376 Mass. at 319, 381 N.E.2d at 912; see also Deere Co. v. Ford, 434 Mass. 223, 231, 747 N.E.2d 1208, 1214 (2001); Beard Motors, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc., 395 Mass. 428, 432, 480 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1985). Any plain meaning definition of "arbitrary or unfair" must, therefore, limit liability on the part of a distributor to damages that arise from its coercion of the dealer by cutting off or purposefully manipulating the supply of vehicles.

  4. Carnes v. Lumnah, No

    No. 004095 (Mass. Cmmw. Oct. 3, 2002)

    Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vynorious, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 121, 124 (1993) (except possibly when it is being used on a public way). More recently, in Deere Co. v. Ford. 434 Mass. 223, 229 (2001), the court held that tractors or riding lawnmowers are not motor vehicles because they are not designed for regular use in the transportation of persons and property on the traveled part of highways. The defendant also argues that had it been the legislature's intent to include them, the term "trailer" would have specifically been included within the definition of "motor vehicle."