Consumer Law Library

International Harvester Company

Volume 98 · 98 F.T.C. 114

Citation
98 F.T.C. 114
Docket
9147
Decision
1981-08-12
Document type
interlocutory order
Case type
consumer protection
Industry
agricultural machinery
Outcome
other
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

International Harvester Company, 98 F.T.C. 114 (1981). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v098-0012

Report an error in this record (decision id v098-0012)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE ~ATTER OF INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO~PANY Docket 91.47. Interlocutory Order, Aug. 12, 1981 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST By motions dated July 14 and 15 , 1981, complaint counsel have asked the Commission to receive and consider new evidence of fuel fires involving respondent Internationa) Harvester s (IH) gas-powered tractors. In its opposing memorandum, IH also provides additional evidence ofrecent fuel fires involving these tractors. The "Gary Killingbeck" incident and other alleged fuel fires recounted for the first time by complaint counsel and IH possibly raise questions both about the appropriate scope of relief in this case and the adequacy of IH's past disclosure of alleged safety hazards to affected tractor owners. Thus, this evidence may be relevant to the public interest question certified to the Commission by Judge ~athias. IH does not deny that this evidence may be relevant to the public interest question. Instead, it claims the evidence of the Killingbeck fire is tainted by the way in which it was collected by complaint counsel and thus should not be considered by the Commission. In the absence of a trial record, the Commission wil not attempt to evaluate IH's allegations, or determine the ultimate weight that should be accorded the new evidence of fuel fires in any findings of fact. However, the existence of such evidence, and the dispute between the parties over its significance, may be relevant to an assessment of the need for further litigation concerning the sufficiency of IH's notification efforts and the appropriateness of prospective relief.

Accordingly, it is ordered, That complaint counsel's motion and supplemental motion for leave to submit additional evidence on the issue of public interest are hereby granted. .

GROLIER, INC. ET AL. 115 115 Interlocutory Order

← 98 F.T.C. 107 · 98 F.T.C. 115 →