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 Cases2003 Suzuki Grand Vitara Rollover And Seatbelt Failure Causes Wrongful DeathSUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE STEVEN BARDONNER Individually and as the Successor in Interest to the
Estate of ANDREA BARDONNER, deceased, NICHELLE BARDONNER, MAKAYLA BARDONNER, and
RICHARD BARDONNER by and through their Guardian ad Litem, TERESA
BOONE, Plaintiffs,
SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION; AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTORS CORPORATION; TAKATA
CORPORATION; TAKATA, INC.; TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC.; TK
HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, [UNLIMITED CIVIL] COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL
ACTION FOR: Comes now Plaintiffs, STEVEN BARDONNER Individually and as the
Successor in Interest to the Estate of ANDREA BARDONNER, deceased, NICHELLE
BARDONNER, MAKAYLA BARDONNER, and RICHARD BARDONNER by and through their
Guardian ad Litem, TERESA BOONE, and for causes of action against Defendants,
and each of them, allege as follows. 1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs STEVEN BARDONNER Individually and as the Successor in Interest to the Estate of ANDREA BARDONNER, deceased, NICHELLE BARDONNER, MAKAYLA BARDONNER, and RICHARD BARDONNER by and through their Guardian ad Litem, TERESA BOONE, were and are individuals and residents of the State of California. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiff, STEVEN BARDONNER is and was the surviving spouse of the decedent, ANDREA BARDONNER, and Plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER, MAKAYLA BARDONNER, and RICHARD BARDONNER were and are the surviving children of the decedent, ANDREA BARDONNER. 2. Plaintiff, STEVEN BARDONNER, Individually and as Successor In Interest to the Estate of ANDREA BARDONNER, deceased, was and is the lawful heir of the decedent, ANDREA BARDONNER and brings this action as a survival action, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32, and also brings this action as a wrongful death action, pursuant to C.C.P. §377.60, for the wrongful death of his wife, and is joined in the wrongful death action by NICHELLE BARDONNER, MAKAYLA BARDONNER, and RICHARD BARDONNER 3. At all times herein mentioned, defendants SUZUKI MOTORS CORP, was and is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Japan with a principal place of business in Kosai, Shizuoka, Japan. 4. At all times herein mentioned, defendants AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTORS CORP. was and is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of California residing in and/or authorized to and/or doing business in the City of Brea, County of Orange, State of California. 5. Defendant TAKATA CORPORATION is a Japanese owned automotive parts supplier headquartered was and is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Japan with a principal place of business in Toyko, 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 SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. and AMERICAN SUZUKI 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 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 Plaintiffs, 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 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereupon allege, 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereupon allege 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 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereupon allege 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, SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION; AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTORS CORPORATION, TAKATA CORPORATION, TAKATA, INC., TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC., TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC 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 2003 Suzuki Grand Vitara, license plate number ENY687, VIN JS3TD62V634103645 (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 California 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 Plaintiffs or the decedent ANDREA BARDONNER, that the vehicle was not mechanically sound or unsafe to operate. 15. On or about July 27, 2006, Plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER, MAKAYLA BARDONNER and Plaintiffs’ decedent, ANDREA BARDONNER, were properly restrained passengers of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, traveling east on Highway 16, west of Range Road 102a, in the Hamlet of Wildwood, Alberta, Canada, when the driver lost control of the SUBJECT VEHICLE due to the defects inherent in the vehicle, and the vehicle left the roadway and descended an embankment, inverting and ejecting the decedent, ANDREA BARDONNER, and causing severe, mortal and fatal injuries. The Plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER and MAKAYLA BARDONNER. were seriously and permanently injured. The decedent, ANDREA BARDONNER survived for a short period of time after the accident, before expiring at the scene of the accident. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY 16. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each of paragraphs 1 through 15, above, as though fully set forth herein. 17. Defendants, SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION; AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTORS CORPORATION; TAKATA CORPORATION; TAKATA, INC.; TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC.; TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. 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 the Plaintiff STEVEN BARDONNER and his wife, who were at all times herein mentioned, the legal purchasers and owners of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 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 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ decedent on or about July 27, 2006, 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 and ejected the decedent, causing ultimately fatal injuries to Plaintiffs’ decedent, legally resulting in Plaintiffs’ damages as set forth herein. 21. As a direct and legal result of the defects in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and its components and subcomponents, Plaintiffs have suffered wrongful death damages, including special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial. 22. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER, MAKAYLA BARDONNER, and RICHARD BARDONNER have suffered the loss of their mother’s consortium, including a loss of love, companionship, comfort, attention, society, solace, moral support, and have further suffered the loss of her financial assistance, and have also incurred funeral and burial expenses, all to Plaintiffs’ damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial. 23. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that
Defendants SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION; AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTORS CORPORATION; TAKATA
CORPORATION; TAKATA, INC.; TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC.; TK HOLDINGS INC.,
ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, and each
of them intentionally engaged in conduct which, with respect to the SUBJECT
DEFECTS which Plaintiffs allege were a legal cause of their 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 disregard for the safety of the Plaintiffs and other
users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, warranting an award of exemplary damages against
Defendants SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION; AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTORS CORPORATION; TAKATA
CORPORATION; TAKATA, INC.; TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC.; TK HOLDINGS INC.,
ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. and DOES 26 through 50, pursuant
to California Civil Code § 3294, and the rule enunciated in Ford Motor Co. v.
Home Ins. Co. (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 374, 381-382 and PPG Industries, Inc v.
Transamerica Ins. Co. (1996) 49 Cal. App.4th 1120. The facts supporting the
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 have also acted with a callous disregard for the safety
of plaintiffs 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 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 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 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 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. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and further thereon allege that, from 1987 onward, Defendants, 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 which in fact Defendants knew at all times they were making such representations that their SUBJECT VEHICLE and other similar SUV’s 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. Defendants TAKATA, INC.; TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC.; TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, all further knew and were well aware from numerous, prior accidents, injuries, lawsuits and claims, that their seat belt buckles and restraints systems furnished for installation in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, were prone to false and inertial unlatching, and inadvertent unlatching from slight inadvertent but fully foreseeable contact with the buckle latch during an accident sequence, and that such seat belt buckles would in fact unlatch and leave properly-restrained occupants of the SUBJECT VEHICLE suddenly unrestrained and susceptible to ejection during an accident when otherwise properly restrained at the commencement of the accident, yet said Defendants and each of them intentionally elected not to effectuate corrections to the design and/or manufacture of such buckles and restraints systems, thus knowingly and intentionally exposing Plaintiffs and other occupants of vehicles such as the SUBJECT VEHICLE to death and serious injury all to advance said Defendants’ pecuniary interests in the form of avoiding increased expense of effectuating improvements in their buckles and restraints systems (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 components; (2) to avoid disclosure during re-certification and retooling processes of the fact that said Defendants knew their previously-manufactured buckles and restraints systems were defective and unsafe, which would greatly increase adverse publicity and said Defendants’ legal exposure in cases brought arising from accident and injuries occurring in production vehicles already in use by the public; and (3) to avoid taking action which would result in disclosures potentially leading to an expensive recall campaign by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. 34. The actions of said Defendants and each of them, as herein described, were thus undertaken with a willful and conscious 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 Plaintiffs, during the course of the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. 35. Plaintiffs further allege 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 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 disregard of public safety for defendants’ pecuniary gain with regard to the design, manufacture, production and marketing of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 36. As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants and each of them, an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION; AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTORS CORPORATION; TAKATA CORPORATION; TAKATA, INC.; TAKATA RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, INC.; TK HOLDINGS INC., ALSO DOING BUSINESS AS TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. and DOES 26 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 37. Plaintiffs incorporate, repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 36, inclusive, and hereby incorporates the same by reference as though set forth in detail. 38. 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. 39. At all times mentioned, Defendants and each of them and DOES 26 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. 40. 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. 41. 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. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 41 above. 43. Plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER and MAKAYLA BARDONNER, suffered
serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving the serious injuries and
danger to the other occupants of the vehicle, who were members of their
family. 44. As described above, defendants negligently caused the serious injuries and death to the plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER and MAKAYLA BARDONNER and the decedent, by reason of the defects inherent in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, which were caused by reason of defendants’ breach of their duties of care 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 the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts and/or after market parts and/or installation guides. 45. At all times mentioned, defendants and each of them and DOES 1 through 100 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its components parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides was 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 persons who used said product, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides. 46. 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 and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides 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 said defendants and each of them. In particular, said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides during a reasonably foreseeable maneuver was unstable, dangerous and would rollover with roof crushing instability causing injury to its occupants, as alleged above. In addition, the glass and glazing of the rear and side windows of the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides during a reasonably foreseeable driving maneuver made with due care were defective and dangerous in that the glass shattered, creating openings or portals causing the plaintiffs to be partially and / or totally ejected from the vehicle, suffering serious personal and laceration injuries, and death of the decedent, LUCIA MERCADO GONZALEZ. 47. Plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER and MAKAYLA BARDONNER were present in
the vehicle while it was rolling and was aware that their mother was being
seriously injured when ejected from the vehicle, cut and lacerated by the broken
glass. As a direct and legal result of the defendants’ negligence,
carelessness, and unlawful conduct and the defects inherent in the vehicle,
plaintiffs NICHELLE BARDONNER and MAKAYLA BARDONNER suffered serious emotional
distress, including but not limited to suffering, anguish, fright, horror,
nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry shock, humiliation, and shame, such that an
ordinary, reasonable person would be unable to cope with the serious emotional
distress. By:__________________________________ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 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
