When child ejected in auto collision, mom sues car dealership

[DainBramaged]

MARSHALL-Antonio Harris was driving his 2005 Dodge Truck in Marshall when he lost control, skidded through an intersection and struck several trees. Ultimately, the truck rolled onto its side and came to rest against several trees. The right front passenger, a minor, was severely injured.

Alleging the truck was unreasonably dangerous and defective, Ronita Harris, individually and as next friend to D.R.H. Minor, filed suit against Action Chrysler Jeep Dodge Inc. on Sept. 21 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

Contrary to the police report, Harris states the minor was wearing the seatbelt as evidence by blood below the stow point.

Harris alleges that the car dealership is liable "because it marketed and represented that said vehicle was safe, when in fact it was unsafe" and "for allowing a defective and unreasonably dangerous product to enter the stream of commerce."

The lawsuit argues that the truck was unreasonably dangerous because the front door opened during the impact, allowing the driver to become partially ejected and then the buckle unlatched allowing the driver to become fully ejected.

Further, the plaintiff states that the vehicle violated principles of crashworthiness, failed to provide proper restraint, violated the purpose of a seatbelt buckle, and was not tested thoroughly. The complaint also argues that the vehicle did not have adequate engineering analysis conducted and that the front structure and roof was weak and inferior.


http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/221269-when-child-ejected-in-auto-collision-mom-sues-car-dealership

[brendan120678]

1. And this is all the dealerships fault??

I feel sorry for this woman that her (I am assuming) child was severely injured.
But this lawsuit should be tossed out.

[TexasObserver]

3. Yes. Jointly and severally with others, such as the manufacturer.

The lawsuit won't be thrown out unless there is no evidence to support the claim, and I do mean NO evidence.

[scheming daemons]

2. Lawsuit should be against the manufacturer, not the dealer

Hope it is tossed.

[TexasObserver]

5. It won't be tossed out.

And it's standard procedure. There are causes of action which a plaintiff may assert, and there are defendants for those causes of action. In this case, the plaintiff will likely sue the dealer and the manufacturer, and each one has exposure to liability.

You draw a distinction between the dealer and the manufacturer that is stronger than the one the law makes. Both can know about a defect in an auto type or make, and both can have a duty to disclose such defect. The dealer has contractual duties the manufacturer does not have with the plaintiff.

Suing the dealer and the manufacturer is common practice. There are a variety of good reasons for doing so, mainly to make your case complete and to get party discovery against the dealer, and to make the dealer roll on the manufacturer.

[AngryAmish]

28. Distributor statute

In most states there is a distributor statute. A distributor is not liable for distributing or selling a defective product - the manufacturer is. (Unless the distributor has actual notice that the product is unsafe).

UNLESS

The manufacturer is bankrupt.


You see, Chrysler went bankrupt. In bankruptcy any pending or potential lawsuits go away. So normally it is just Chrysler/Dodge getting sued in products cases but since they went belly up the dealers are getting brought into this. Fantastic, isn't it?

[appamado amata padam]

4. It's a longshot, but yes,

if there is a design flaw that the dealership knew about, or should've known about, and kept selling vehicles, yes, they may be held liable.

[jberryhill]

11. Knowledge is not typically a requirement for defective product liability

The point is that if you buy something from a store, you might not even know where the product came from, but you bought it from that store. If the store is held liable, they can go after their upstream in a chain of liability.

[appamado amata padam]

13. Thank you - I should add -

I am not a lawyer - just putting in my 2 cents.

Thx for the clarification.

[Stevenmarc]

6. It's hardly uncommon that a lawyer goes after every deep pocket to see what sticks

[John1956PA]

8. Sign of the times: the dealership's pocket may be deeper than the manufacturer's.

I am being mildly sarcastic, especially since there should be insurance covering the manufacturer. Still, with the manufacturers' futures hanging by a thread, the lawyers are starting to take a closer look at the dealer's "pocket" which was usually overlooked in the past in these types of cases due to the fact that the manufacturer's "pocket" had always been reliably deep.

[madmom]

7. Could have been sold as a used car and they claimed it was all of the above to get her to buy it.

[kestrel91316]

9. How fast was Mr. Harris driving, and had he been drinking???

[jberryhill]

10. Depends on how that state handles defective product claims

When a claim is premised on a defective product, a typical state rule is that the entity which sold it to the consumer can be held liable.

The plaintiff is located in Texas, and the dealer is located in Texas. Naming the dealer avoids jurisdictional claims that the manufacturer might raise.

If the product is defective, then the manufacturer is liable to the dealer.

However, naming the dealer may have been necessary to bring the suit in the state where the plaintiff is located as opposed to, say, the principal office of the manufacturer or wherever the product was manufactured.

[blueamy66]

12. We are a sue happy nation.

Thank goodness for karma.

[-..__...]

17. Solution...

loser pays all legal costs.

Might not be perfect, but any alternative can't be worse than the sue crazy system we have now.

[slampoet]

19. if we had free universal healthcare no body would need to sue to cover costs.

might be a better solution.

[blueamy66]

21. Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Just like the judge that sued and ruined the dry cleaners in NY over a pair of pants.

Geeshhh...

[Obamanaut]

14. Odd that it wasn't one of those poorly made imported trucks.

[alarimer]

32. No it was a poorly made Dodges.

ALL Dodges are poorly made. They are just complete utter shit.

We have had a number of them at work but my employer no longer buys Dodge trucks because they have more frequent and more costly repairs than any other brand.

[DainBramaged]

15. Five words stand out here folks

Contrary to the police report

This is going nowhere, but will cost the dealership thousands in unnecessary costs.

[TexasObserver]

22. Those five words won't affect the outcome much, if any.

The JURY will decide whether the child was properly secured in a seat, not the police report. The police report merely repeats what someone says, or it provides a conclusion some police officer made. As such, it is not conclusive evidence. It's subject to Motions in Limine, to limit the content that can be shown to the jury. It's subject to hearsay objections. It's subject to challenging of conclusory language made without proper authentication or predicate.

This case may or may not go anywhere. It depends on how good the plaintiff's lawyers are, how much money they have to invest in the case, and on how good their experts are at proving up the defect and causation.

If the jury believes the child was secured, they'll likely believe the plaintiff's theory of the case, so this is likely an all or nothing case. Either plaintiff wins big or nothing at all.

In cases such as this one, years down the road, discovery typically proves that the manufacturer has long known the product had a defect which had a propensity to cause certain types of harm. Manufacturers engage in massive conspiracies to hide knowledge of defects, including committing fraud in litigation discovery. Remember the exploding tire cases of ten years ago? There was massive discovery fraud by the manufacturers involved. They tried to keep all the plaintiffs nationwide in the dark about other cases, so plaintiffs couldn't pool info. They were covering up tons of evidence about quality control problems at plants, which problems produced tires that were defective and would come unraveled, and which occasionally locked up the rear axle and flipped SUVs.

Don't be so quick to conclude that the manufacturer is free of blame or that suing them is unwarranted.

[Romulox]

23. "Party admissions" + police reports = 2 of the biggest hearsay exceptions!

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

26. You're assuming there was a party admission, of which there is no evidence.

You're also assuming something untrue. I didn't say the police report was inadmissible. I said it was subject a variety of objections, and can be redacted. And you're assuming that none of the parts of the police report are subject to the objections I mentioned.

As my language noted, the police report is not dispositive, it is hearsay, and its contents are subject to a variety of objections. Contrary to your representation, the police report may be redacted by court order giving limiting instructions, based upon appropriate objections.

[Romulox]

30. Well, there's *some* evidence. It's merely circumstantial.

"You're also assuming something untrue."

No I'm not. Just stating that, in this case, the exceptions subsume the rule. That is to say, these sorts of things are more likely to be admitted than excluded. Of course, one can imagine all sorts of facts that might exclude them.

"Contrary to your representation, the police report may be redacted by court order giving limiting instructions, based upon appropriate objections."

I didn't represent anything like that. :shrug:

[TexasObserver]

31. It's a jury point. They'll hear the evidence. They'll decide.

They may get to see the police report and whatever it contains that disputes the child was secured in the seat. They will definitely get to hear testimony to the contrary by a survivor.

This subthread is about whether the police report claim that the child was unsecured would be dispositive of the issue. It is not about admissibility, except to the extent that some of the report may be subject to objection or limitation. This subthread is about the weight of the police report, the fact that it is not dispositive of the issue, that it likely contains some opinion, and that in the end, whether the child was secured is still a fact question for the jury to decide.

[SilverShield]

16. Its never your fault

God bless America...

[Zywiec]

18. So why are so many people against tort reform? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Because I have faith that the courts can sort it out.

[TwilightGardener]

20. Apparently you should be able to walk away completely unscathed when

you "lose control", fly through an intersection, slam into trees, and roll your vehicle. If not, then SOMEONE MUST PAY. But not you. You and your passengers are the "victims".

[rd_kent]

24. How did he lose control? Texting, talking on the phone, playing with the radio?

Speeding? Where is the accountability of the DRIVER?

[Liberal_in_LA]

25. Seems like she should sue the driver but, of course, she's going after the deepest pockets

[petronius]

27. I always thought that pickup trucks were never designed to be

every-day vehicles in the first place, and are generally less safe than other car types. Perhaps newer trucks are different, now that they've become so popular...

It's kind of hard to make a determination in this case without a lot more info - when you crash your car you have to expect parts are going to fail, so I guess some design expert is going to have to determine if the door and seatbelt (if used) were inadequate.

[Blue_Tires]

33. kind of light on details...

unless there are some documented related flaws in the model line, it will be difficult to prove the allegations...

and lines like this:

"Further, the plaintiff states that the vehicle violated principles of crashworthiness, failed to provide proper restraint, violated the purpose of a seatbelt buckle, and was not tested thoroughly. The complaint also argues that the vehicle did not have adequate engineering analysis conducted and that the front structure and roof was weak and inferior."

make my eyes roll...A lot of independent testing will be needed to prove those...