Opinion
Page 372d
161 Cal.App.4th 372d __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ BENETTA BUELL-WILSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al, Defendants and Appellants. D045154, D045579 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division April 10, 2008Super. Ct. No. GIC800836.
THE COURT.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 10, 2008, (160 Cal.App.4th 1107; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___) is modified as follows, and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
1. At page 87 [160 Cal.Ap.4th 1174, advance report, 1st full par., line 7], the last sentence on that page is modified to delete the following language: "or improper argument of counsel."
2. At page 87 [160 Cal.App.4th 1176, advance report, fn. 14], following the last sentence on that page, a footnote 14 is added, stating:
In its petition for rehearing Ford asserts that our opinion erroneously states that counsel conceded at oral argument that Ford failed to raise instructional error in the first appeal. However, a review of the oral argument record shows otherwise. First, at 9:20 a.m., the following exchange took place:
"[The Court:] Are you saying there was instructional error at the trial?
"[Ford's Counsel:] Yes.
"[The Court:] Did you raise it in your first appeal?
"[Ford's Counsel:] In our first appeal, Your Honor, we focused on the third party harm issue, but we focused on the Bronco II
"[The Court:] So the answer is, 'No'?
"[Ford's Counsel:] The answer is, 'No,' we did not specifically raise the instructional issue in our first appeal . . . ."
In rebuttal, the following exchange took place, beginning at 9:51 a.m.:
Page 372e
"[The Court:] But did you complain about instructional error in your appeal?
"[Ford's Counsel:] We, we did not complain about it in our, in the first go-round."
All subsequent footnotes are renumbered accordingly.
There is no change in the judgment.