Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.
ARTICLE ID 40420
$________ - PRODUCTS LIABILITY - DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED CAR SEAT ON ________ CHEVROLET CHEVETTE - SEAT COLLAPSE - PERMANENT QUADRIPLEGIA TO 33-YEAR-OLD NURSE.
Bucks County
This action was brought under strict liability theory against the
defendant General Motors Corporation in relation to its design
and manufacturer of the ________ Chevrolet Chevette. The plaintiff, a
33-year-old female at the time of injury, alleged that the seats
of the vehicle were defectively designed so as to cause the back
of the seat to collapse upon rear end impact, throwing the
plaintiff into the back seat. The plaintiff sustained a permanent
spinal cord injury in the accident rendering her a complete
quadriplegic. The defendant argued that the seats were designed
for maximum safety and that more rigid seatback designs carried a
greater risk of personal injury to occupants of the vehicle.
Evidence showed that the plaintiff, a single woman with no
children, was a belted front seat passenger in a vehicle driven
by a male friend. The host driver backed up the plaintiffs
Chevette on the shoulder of the road after missing an exit. The
plaintiffs accident reconstruction expert testified that the
host driver stopped the car, but before he had a chance to move
forward, the car was struck from behind by a Honda Prelude
traveling approximately 35 mph. The plaintiffs biomechanical
engineer testified that the rear end impact caused the front
passenger seat of the vehicle to collapse, vaulting the plaintiff
into the back seat where she sustained a sever injury to her
spinal cord.
The plaintiffs seat design expert opined that the seatbacks of
the Chevette were defectively designed by the defendant, General
Motors, in that the seat should not have collapsed upon impact
from behind. The plaintiff introduced evidence that the defendant
had been involved in at least 60 prior claims involving seatback
collapse in vehicles which it manufactured. The jury heard parts
of four General Motors internal studies from ________, ________, ________ and
________ which all addressed the issue of yielding vs. less yielding
seatback designs. The plaintiff contended that the reports
recommended the seats remain relatively upright and not collapse
at impacts speeds in the order of 30 mph in order to avoid the
known risk of quadriplegia caused when occupants are vaulted into
the rear seat. The plaintiff also introduced videos of General
Motors crash tests which depicted a dummy being ramped into the
back seat of the vehicle after the seat collapsed upon rear end
impact.
The plaintiffs physiatrist testified that the plaintiff has been
rendered a permanent quadriplegia and will require living
assistance for the remainder of her life. The plaintiffs
economist estimated the plaintiffs past and future wage loss as
$1 to $1.2 million. A "Day in the Life Video" was presented to
the jury showing the plaintiffs daily activities. The
plaintiffs past and future medical expenses were estimated at an
additional $11 to $13 million, including the cost of home
modifications and specialized transportation.
The defendants biomechanical expert testified that the p 7 3
plaintiff was twisted between the front seats looking out the
rear window when the impact occurred. The defendants accident
reconstruction expert testified that the host vehicle was still
moving backwards when it was struck from behind at a speed of
approximately 50 mph. The defense maintained that a more rigid
seatback would not have prevented the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff. The defendants in-house engineer testified that the
seatbacks were designed to collapse or be more "yielding" because
studies established that yielding seats provide safety benefits
over rigid seats in preventing the more common neck and back
injuries. Serious injuries related to seat collapse are very
rare, according to defense arguments.
The jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of $28 million.
The general verdict did not breakdown the amount of the award.
Post-trial motions are pending.
5 ways to win with JVRA
JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.
Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.