Over 97.8% Success Rate $100s of Millions Recovered For Over 6,000 Clients Rated "Superb 10/10" by Attorney Rating Service Super Lawyers 2010 Top 50 Orange County Lawyers 2010 Top Orange County Lawyers in Orange Coast Magazine 2010 Top Southern California Attorneys in Los Angeles Magazine Ranked in Top 2009 Orange County Personal Injury Lawyers Top 100 in The American Trial Lawyers Association Products Liability Orange County Trial Lawyer of the Year Martindale-Hubbell Highest AV "Preeminent 5/5" Attorney Rating |
Personal Injury Legal Cases2002 GMC Yukon Denali Roof Crush Causes Catastrophic InjurySTATE OF WYOMING THOMAS
TRCKA. PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; 2. At all times herein mentioned, defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GMC TRUCK, A Division of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were individuals, corporations, partnerships, and/or associations residing in and/or authorized to and/or doing business in the State of Wyoming. 3. Defendant TAKATA CORPORATION is a Japanese owned automotive parts supplier headquartered in and is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with a principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. The corporation manufactures and supplies seat belt systems and related components, steering wheels, airbag modules and inflators, electronic sensor units, electronic modules, clock springs, and a wide range of interior trim components. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon, that Defendant, TAKATA CORPORATION designed and manufactured the seat belt system installed in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and in automobiles and trucks sold by GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and used by the general public for business and recreation, and all times knew or reasonably should have known that such restraint systems in such vehicles would be used by the public at large without inspection for defects. 4. Defendant TAKATA INC. is a Delaware corporation authorized to transact business and transacts business in the State of California. At all material times, TAKATA INC. was a wholly owned subsidiary of and/or agent of Defendant TAKATA CORPORATION. 5. Defendant TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC. is a Delaware corporation authorized to transact business and transacts business in the State of California. At all material times, TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC. was a wholly owned subsidiary of and/or agent of Defendant TAKATA CORPORATION. 6. Defendant, TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC., is a Delaware corporation authorized to transact business and transacts business in the State of California. At all material times, TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. was a wholly owned subsidiary of and/or agent of Defendant TAKATA CORPORATION. 7. Defendant, TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. is a Japanese owned automotive parts supplier headquartered in the United States in San Antonio, Texas, and was authorized and qualified to do business and was doing business in the County of Knox, in the State of Kentucky. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. is and was, at all times relevant herein, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky, with its headquarters and principal place of business in Frankfort, Kentucky. The company manufactures and supplies seat belt systems and related components, steering wheels, airbag modules and inflators, electronic sensor units, electronic modules, clock springs, and a wide range of interior trim components. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon, that Defendant, TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC., designed and manufactured the seat belt system installed in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and in automobiles and trucks sold by GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and used by the general public for business and recreation, and all times knew or reasonably should have known that such restraint systems in such vehicles would be used by the public at large without inspection for defects. 8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants DAVE SMITH MOTORS, was and is a dba duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wyoming, and was and is doing business as DAVE SMITH MOTORS, and had a principal place of business in the City of Kellog, State of Wyoming. 9. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate associate, governmental or otherwise of defendant Does 1 through 100, inclusive and each of them are unknown to the Plaintiff, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and/or capacities of said defendants are ascertained, the Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend the Complaint accordingly. 10. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that each defendant designated herein as a Doe was responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings herein referred to which proximately caused the damages to the Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged, either through said defendant’s own negligence or through the conduct of its agents, servants, employees or representatives in some other manner. 11. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereupon alleges that at all times mentioned herein the defendants and each of them were the agents, servants, employees, representatives and/or joint venturers of their co-defendants and were, as such acting within the course, scope and authority of said agency, services, employment, representation and/or joint venture in that each and every defendant, as aforesaid when acting as principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, representative and/or joint venturer. 12. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges that at all times mentioned herein each of the defendants, including Defendant Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them were the agents, servants, employees, representatives of each of the remaining defendants and were at all times material hereto acting within the authorized course and scope of said agency, service, employment and/or representation, and/or that all of said acts, conduct and omissions were subsequently ratified by their respective principals and the benefits thereof accepted by such principals. 13. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; GMC TRUCK, a Division of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGS INC. ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC.; DAVE SMITH MOTORS and DOES 1 through 100, were and are engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, inspecting, servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, leasing, renting, selling, retailing, wholesaling and advertising a certain subject 2002 GMC Yukon Denali, VIN 1GKEK63U52J122906 (hereinafter “SUBJECT VEHICLE”), and each and every component part thereof, which defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, would be used without inspection for defects in its parts, mechanisms or design, for use in the State of Wyoming and elsewhere. 14. At no time at or prior to such sale did said Defendants ever issue any warnings or notifications about any dangers or safety issues extant in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, nor did said Defendants ever advise the Plaintiff, that the vehicle was not mechanically sound or unsafe to operate. 15. On July 10, 2007, plaintiff's decedent was a properly restrained passenger in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, then being driven by Carmen L. Todd on Interstate 90 in Wyoming, near Milepost CL01, Highway Section No. 122.0. The driver lost control of the vehicle and it overturned due to inherent defects in it, landing on its roof and skidding into and bouncing off of a guardrail, finally coming to rest on its passenger side. Plaintiff's decedent suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of the rollover, including being scalped by the force of her head coming into contact with the vehicle components and/or road and a severe skull fracture, which injuries caused her ensuing death. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY 16. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1 through 16, above, as though fully set forth herein. 17. Defendants, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; GMC TRUCK, a Division of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS, TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC.; DAVE SMITH MOTORS and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, knew that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by the users of that vehicle including but not limited to Plaintiff and Carmen L. Todd. 18. The SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts was manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, adjusted, selected and used with inherent vices and defects both in design and manufacturing and by failure to warn (hereinafter “SUBJECT DEFECTS”) which made it dangerous, hazardous and unsafe both for its intended use or for reasonably foreseeable misuses. 19. These SUBJECT DEFECTS included, but were not limited to the
following. 20. Said product and each of its component parts were unsafe for its intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuses by reason of the defects in its design and/or manufacturing and/or failure to warn by said Defendants, and each of them, in that when the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts were used by driver and decedent on or about July 10, 2007, as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, the SUBJECT VEHICLE, during reasonably foreseeable driving maneuvers, was dangerous and did suffer a loss of lateral control, and did rollover in a roof crushing crash, and partially ejected the decedent, causing ultimately fatal injuries to Plaintiff’s decedent, legally resulting in Plaintiff’s damages as set forth herein. 21. As a direct and legal result of the defects in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and its components and subcomponents, Plaintiff has suffered wrongful death damages, including special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Court according to proof at trial. 23. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; GMC TRUCK, a Division of GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them intentionally engaged in conduct which,
with respect to the SUBJECT DEFECTS which Plaintiffs allege were a legal cause
of his loss, damages, injuries and harm, further exposed Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs’ decedent and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to serious potential
danger known to said Defendants in order to advance the Defendants’ pecuniary
interests and thus acted with a conscious reckless disregard for the safety of
the Plaintiffs and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, warranting an award of
exemplary damages against said Defendants under Wyoming law. The facts
supporting said Defendants’ intentional conduct which exposed Plaintiffs and
other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to serious potential danger known to the
Defendants in order to advance the Defendants’ pecuniary interests, are on
information and belief, as follows. 24. Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A
Division of General Motors Corporation have also acted with a callous and
reckless disregard for the safety of plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent and the
motoring public with respect to eliminating or reducing the injuries and deaths
due to the defective roofs and roof designs of their vehicles’ which have a
greater propensity to roll, namely, defendants’ trucks, vans and SUVs. Since
1968, Defendants and each of them have known and been placed upon notice
contemporaneously as a result of crash data, in-house testing, field-service
reports, and published studies that actual users of and passengers carried
within pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs manufactured by said Defendants and each of
them, including but not limited to, the SUBJECT VEHICLE, were susceptible to
accident forces exceeding 8,000 Newtons which forces were more than sufficient
to cause and bring about, and which accident forces were and are causing and
bringing about, serious and substantial head and neck injuries during rollovers
when such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE were and are actually
used by such users of these trucks and members of the public as intended or in a
reasonably foreseeable manner. 25. Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A Division of General Motors Corporation and each of them therein further knowingly falsified their test results, ignored and suppressed data, and further falsely mis-characterized adverse test data which said Defendants knew at the time tended to prove that their trucks, vans and SUVs and the SUBJECT VEHICLE were defective and unsafe in real world rollover accidents, and would and did expose members of the public and users of said Defendants’ trucks, SUVs, vans and the SUBJECT VEHICLE, to death and serious head and spinal injuries in the MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS due to the insufficient strength of the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails in such vehicles. 26. After demands were made by litigants and other members of the public following the 1985 publication of the MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS, said Defendants and each of them intentionally spoliated and destroyed critical test evidence and test documentation upon which the MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS were allegedly based, so as to prevent discovery of the falsehoods and misrepresentations made by said Defendants in the MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS, and to prevent disclosure of the fact that said Defendants knew that they were knowingly and intentionally exposing users of said Defendants’ trucks, SUVs, vans and Pick-Up’s, including Plaintiff, to death and serious head and spinal injuries in the MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS due to the insufficient strength of the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails installed in such vehicles. 27. In 1990, Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A
Division of General Motors Corporation and each of them again published a second
position paper detailing rollover roof crush studies said Defendants claimed to
have performed in-house (hereinafter “MALIBU 2 TEST RESULTS”), in which results
said Defendants knowingly and intentionally falsified test data: defendants and
each of them knew and intended that the MALIBU 2 TEST RESULTS falsely concluded
and misrepresented, based upon the 1983 to 1984 testing performed by the said
Defendants and the data obtained therefrom, that: 28. Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A Division of General Motors Corporation and each of them therein further knowingly falsified their test results, ignored and suppressed data, and further falsely mis-characterized adverse test data which said Defendants knew at the time tended to prove that their trucks, vans, SUVs; and Pick-Up’s were defective and unsafe in real world rollover accidents, and would and did expose members of the public and users of said Defendants’ trucks, SUVs and vans to death and serious head and spinal injuries in the MALIBU 2 TEST RESULTS due to the insufficient strength of the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails in such vehicles. 29. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A Division of General Motors Corporation and each of them were aware that use of complete sections, thicker steel and stronger materials in A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails was at all times mechanically feasible, posed no adverse consequences to consumers or to said Defendants’ trucks, vans and SUVs, and were only marginally more expensive to implement, which use of complete sections, thicker steel and stronger materials in A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails would withstand rollover impact forces of in excess of 8,000 Newtons and thus would prevent death and serious injuries in most actual rollover accident cases, including that accident which is the subject of this action. 30. At all times herein mentioned, on information and belief, Defendants and each of them knew and were aware that members of the public were suffering from death and serious injuries in rollover accidents which involved roof crushing forces in said Defendants’ trucks, vans, and SUVs as a result of said Defendants’ failure to use complete sections, thicker steel and stronger materials in A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails of said Defendants’ vehicles. 31. At all times mentioned herein, despite the fact that Defendants and each of them were aware that use of complete sections, thicker steel and stronger materials in A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails was at all times mechanically feasible, posed no adverse consequences to consumers or to said Defendants’ trucks, vans and SUVs, were only marginally more expensive to implement, and would have prevented deaths and serious injuries in most actual rollover accident cases, including that accident which is the subject of this action, said Defendants intentionally refused to use complete sections, thicker steel and stronger materials in A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails of their trucks, vans and SUVs: (1) to avoid the increased expense of using such improvements in their vehicles (including costs of redesign, more extensive materials, retooling, re-certification expenditures and other costs of implementation), so as to preserve and widen said Defendants’ profit margin on the sales of such vehicles; (2) to avoid disclosure during re-certification and retooling processes of the fact that said Defendants knew their previously-manufactured trucks, vans, and SUVs’ A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails were of insufficient strength to withstand even modest actual rollover accidents without the risks of serious injuries and death to users of such vehicles, which would greatly increase said Defendants’ legal exposure in cases brought arising from rollovers of production vehicles already in use by the public; and (3) to avoid taking action which would result in disclosures leading to an expensive recall campaign by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and further thereon alleges that, from 1987 onward, Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A Division of General Motors Corporation, in concert with other auto makers, conducted studies including, but not limited to, the “Sedona project,” to determine the extent to which the use of laminated glass windshields could be used in the stead and in place of stronger materials resistant to foreseeable roof crush for the purposes of meeting other inadequate and insufficient Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (“FMVSS”) testing not replicating real world roof crush events, all for the purposes of saving the Defendants money and advancing their pecuniary interests by reducing costs of production and increasing profits, despite knowing at all times relevant that during a real world roof crush event, the windshield will universally and always fracture instantaneously losing its structural strength and thus instantaneously depriving occupants of the SUBJECT VEHICLE of any genuine sufficient protection from catastrophic and/or fatal injuries as a result of the roof crush forces. At the same time Defendants thus were reducing the strength of the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s roof to be able to withstand foreseeable and statistically inevitable real world roof crush events, in order to effectuate cost savings and increase profits to the detriment of the safety of the public using such vehicles, thus exhibiting a willful and conscious disregard of such public’s safety, as alleged herein, Defendants and each of them advertised and marketed their vehicles as safe, rugged and steady “like a rock,” which in fact Defendants knew at all times they were making such representations that their SUBJECT VEHICLE and other similar GMC Trucks would be likely to leave occupants of the vehicle totally unprotected from catastrophic injuries and death from roof crushing forces during statistically inevitable and foreseeable rollover incidents. 33. The actions of said Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A Division of General Motors Corporation and each of them, as herein described, were thus undertaken with a willful, conscious and reckless disregard for the rights and safety of consumers and users of said Defendants trucks, vans and SUVs, including the SUBJECT VEHICLE, in order to advance the pecuniary gains of the Defendants and each of them, and were despicable because such aforesaid conduct would and does kill people, and cause serious and life changing injuries, including but not limited to permanent paralysis, including but not limited to the Plaintiff, during the course of the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. 34. Plaintiff further alleges that the conduct of the defendants was undertaken with the result that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s ultimate defects in its design and production were fully intended by the Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A Division of General Motors Corporation to reside therein such that they were and are the product of the entire corporate management and corporate policy of the Defendants with respect to the conscious, willful, and reckless disregard of public safety for defendants’ pecuniary gain with regard to the design, manufacture, production and marketing of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 35. As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GMC TRUCK, A Division of General Motors Corporation and each of them, an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; GMC TRUCK, a Division of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them is proper and appropriate to punish said Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 36. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, and hereby incorporates the same by reference as though set forth in detail. 37. At all times mentioned, Defendants and each of them, had a duty to properly manufacture, design, assemble, package, test, fabricate, analyze, inspect, merchandise, market, distribute, label, advertise, promote, sell, supply, lease, rent, warn, select, inspect and repair said product and each of its component parts. 38. At all times mentioned, Defendants and each of them and DOES 1 through 50 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its components parts were not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, selected and provided inadequate warnings for the use and purpose for which it was intended in that it was likely to injure the person who used said product, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides. 39. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly,
manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed,
inspected, merchandised, marketed, modified, distributed, labeled, advertised,
promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, selected and provided
inadequate warnings and provided said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component
parts so that the same was a defective and dangerous product, unsafe for the
respective use and purpose for which it was intended when used and driven as
recommended or for reasonably foreseeable misuse by members of the public,
including plaintiff. In particular, the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its
component parts during a reasonably foreseeable maneuver was unstable, dangerous
and would rollover with roof crushing instability causing injury and death to
its occupants, as alleged herein. In addition, the SUBJECT VEHICLE and
each of its component parts during a reasonably foreseeable driving maneuver
made with due care was unstable and dangerous. 40. As a
direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, and unlawful conduct of
the Defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle,
Plaintiff has suffered the wrongful death damages as alleged
herein.
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. John H. Robinson By:__________________________________
|
Orange County CA personal injury Attorney Disclaimer: The orange county personal injury, wrongful death, dog bite, amusement park accidents, negligence, California truck accident, product liability or other legal information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice, nor the formation of a lawyer or attorney client relationship. Any results set forth here were dependent on the facts of that case and the results will differ from case to case. Please contact an Orange County personal injury lawyer or California car accident attorney at one of our California law firm offices. This web site is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California, although we have relationships with attorneys and law firms throughout the United States.
The Personal Injury Attorneys at BISNAR | CHASE are licensed to practice in California, Washington and New York. We represent personal injury clients and car accident victims in California, including Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, San Diego County and San Francisco County. Please see our complete list of personal injury law office addresses in Newport Beach, Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Lake Forest, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster, Los Angeles, Torrance, West Covina, San Francisco, Riverside, San Bernardino, Victorville, Ventura and San Diego. In addition, we represent personal injury clients in other states through our associations with local law firms. Through the local firm, we will be admitted to practice law in their State, pro hac vice, meaning for this particular occasion. When in our client's interest, we employ the local law firm (at no additional cost to our client) to assist us with routine court appearances and discovery proceedings to more efficiently pursue our client's cause.
©1999-2010 BISNAR | CHASE Personal Injury Lawyers - All rights reserved. Addresses: 1301 Dove St., Suite 120, Newport Beach, CA 92660; 1111 South Grand Ave., Suite 101, Los Angeles, CA 90015; 5139 Geary Boulevard, San Francisco, CA 92118. Phone: 1-800-561-4887
Original Website, SEO and Legal Internet Marketing by SLS Consulting
