En EspaƱol

Do I have a case for my auto defect?

Free Case Evaluation - Our full time staff is ready to evaluate your case submission and will respond in a timely manner.

Personal Injury Legal Cases

1988 Chevrolet Pickup Rollover Accident Causes Catastrophic Personal Injury

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

RICHARD DOCKSTEADER, JR, an individual, Plaintiff
vs.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants.

CASE NO.:CV20090820
[UNLIMITED CIVIL]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
Negligent Product Liability

Comes now Plaintiff, RICHARD DOCKSTEADER, JR, individually and for causes of action against Defendants, and each of them, alleges as follows.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

  1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff RICHARD DOCKSTEADER, JR. was and is an individual and resident of the State of Minnesota.
  2. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendant, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION was and is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal places of business in the City of Detroit, Michigan, and was authorized and qualified to do business and was doing business in the State of Arizona. Defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION was and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, researching, testing, assembling, distributing, selling, inspecting, servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, selling, retailing, wholesaling, advertising and constructing automobiles, trucks, vans and sports utility vehicles (SUVs), to the general public, for use for business and recreation, and at all times knew or reasonably should have known that such vehicles would be used by the public at large without inspection for defects. Defendant, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, is and was a citizen of the States of Delaware, Michigan and Arizona.
  3. Defendant TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., is and was, at all relevant times, the parent corporation for the coordination of TRW subsidiaries, including but not limited to Defendant, TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC., its vehicle occupant restraint systems subsidiary. Defendant TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP. is and was a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Livonia, Michigan. Defendant TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP. is and was a citizen of the States of Delaware and Michigan.
  4. Defendant TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP. is and was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, researching, testing, distributing, advertising, constructing, and selling integrated vehicle control and driver assist systems, including but not limited to braking systems, steering systems, suspension systems, occupant safety systems, electronics, engine components, fastening systems and aftermarket replacement parts and services. Defendant, TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP. supplied those safety systems installed in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to the seat belt buckles and restraints systems, as well as others used 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 seat belt buckles and restraints in such vehicles would be used by the public at large without inspection for defects. At all times relevant herein, TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP. (and its subsidiaries) designed, manufactured, researched, tested, distributed, advertised, constructed, and sold the seat belt buckles, tongues and restraints systems installed by GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION in the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
  5. Defendant TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. ("TRW VSSI"), is and was, at all times relevant herein, engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, researching, testing, distributing, advertising, constructing, and selling vehicle safety systems, including but not limited to those safety systems installed in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to the seat belt buckles and restraints systems for use 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 buckles and restraint systems in such vehicles would be used by the public at large without inspection for defects. At all times relevant herein, TRW VSSI designed, manufactured, researched, tested, distributed, advertised, constructed, and sold the seat belt buckles, tongues and restraints systems installed by Defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION in the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
  6. 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 Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and/or capacities of said Defendants are ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend the complaint accordingly.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 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 1988 Chevrolet pickup, license plate number REK245, VIN 1GCCS14R3J2153676 (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 Arizona and elsewhere.
  11. 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.
  12. On or about November 12, 2007, Plaintiff was a properly restrained driver of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, traveling northbound on Interstate 17 outside of Black Canyon City, County of Yavapai, State of Arizona, when his vehicle was struck in the left side by a 2003 Chevrolet pickup truck. Mr. Docksteader lost control of the SUBJECT VEHICLE due to the defects inherent in the vehicle, and the vehicle veered to the right striking the guardrail, overturned and came to rest on its roof causing catastrophic injuries to Plaintiff.
  13. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Negligence Product Liability Against Defendants, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. and DOES 1 through 100 Inclusive)

  14. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 12, inclusive, and hereby incorporates the same by reference as though set forth in detail.
  15. 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.
  16. 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 component 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.
  17. 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. These defects (collectively referred to hereafter as the "SUBJECT DEFECTS") included, but were not limited to, the following:
    • A defective and unsafe restraint system, including but not limited to defective seat buckles, defective lap and shoulder belts, and defective retractors, all of which resulted in an increased and unreasonable likelihood of excessive occupant vertical excursion in the event of a rollover and likely occupant interaction with the subject vehicles roof, roof rails, headers, and A and B pillar, and/or partial ejection. Defendants, and each of them, knew the restraint system would fail to protect an occupant such as plaintiff in a foreseeable roll-over collision.
    • Defective A and B pillars, windshield headers, and roof rails fabricated without sufficient strength or structural integrity to prevent the roof of the SUBJECT VEHICLE from collapsing in a foreseeable roll-over collision. Defendants, and each of them, knew that the roof of the subject vehicle would collapse in foreseeable rollover accidents such as we have here, and further knew that the subject vehicles roof could not even sustain the weight of the vehicle when inverted without catastrophic failure and collapse into the occupant survival space.
    • Defective stability control systems and overall design to prevent the SUBJECT VEHICLE from rolling over when subjected to accident forces as were involved in the SUBJECT ACCIDENT. Defendants, and each of them, knew of the inherent directional and lateral instability of the subject vehicle and yet failed to adequately remedy these known, defective and dangerous handling and stability characteristics of the subject vehicle.
    • Even though Defendants, and each of them, knew of the above referenced defects, Defendants nevertheless failed to warn or adequately warn about any of the referenced defects.
  18. 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 catastrophic personal injury damages as alleged herein.
  19. ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM

    (Against Defendants, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; and DOES 51 through 100, Inclusive ONLY

  20. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and DOES 51 through 100, and each of them intentionally engaged in conduct which, with respect to the SUBJECT DEFECTS which Plaintiff alleges were a legal cause of his loss, damages, injuries and harm, further exposed Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, warranting an award of exemplary damages against Defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and DOES 51 through 100. The facts supporting the Defendants' intentional conduct which exposed Plaintiff 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.
  21. Defendants have acted with a callous disregard for the safety of plaintiff 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.
    • Since 1968, Defendants and each of them have known and been placed upon notice contemporaneously as a result of the information described herein, that the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails of such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE, must be manufactured and fabricated to withstand rollover crushing forces of at least 8,000 Newtons in order adequately to protect users of these trucks and members of the public from serious injuries and/or death from crushing of the roofs of such vehicles during rollovers when such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE were and are actually being used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
    • In or about 1983 and 1984, Chrysler and Anthony Sances of the Medical College of Wisconsin published industry studies of which Defendants and each of them were in receipt and on notice, which further established that the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails of such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE, must be manufactured and fabricated to withstand rollover crushing forces of at least 8,000 Newtons in order adequately to protect users of these trucks and members of the public from serious injuries and/or death from crushing of the roofs of such vehicles during rollovers when such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE were and are actually used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
    • In 1984, Defendants and each of them, published Hybrid III crash dummy specifications for a catastrophic compressive neck injury of 4,000 Newtons at the load cell (i.e., the base of the human head) when they knew at that time that such forces were approximately one-half of the crushing forces Defendants knew at the time from Cadaver and other studies in their possession, were minimally necessary to effect head and neck injuries, which actions were taken to establish a false set of rollover crush force minima which were not representative of actual rollover accident conditions, and which were intended by said Defendants to and which in fact did falsely lead the public and regulatory bodies of the U.S. Government to believe that the trucks, vans and SUVs manufactured by the Defendants and each of them had sufficiently fortified A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails within such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE so as to be able to withstand rollover crush forces of 4,000 Newtons.
    • In fact this was half of the roof crush impact forces said Defendants and each of them knew were actually being sustained in such rollover accidents, and which rollover crush forces said Defendants, and each of them knew, were well beyond the actual structural prophylactic limitations of the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails said Defendants were using and continued to use within such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE, such that said Defendants knew and intended that members of the public and users of such vehicles were being exposed and would continue to be exposed to death and serious injuries from the crushing of the roofs of such vehicles during rollovers when such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE were and are actually being used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
    • In 1985, as a result of information which had come to light as a result of rollover crush accident data, in-house testing, field-service reports, and published studies, Defendants and each of them published a position paper detailing rollover roof crush studies said Defendants claimed to have performed in-house (during calendar years 1983 and 1984) (hereinafter "MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS"). Said Defendants and each of them knew and intended that the MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS falsely concluded and misrepresented, based upon the 1983 to 1984 testing performed by said Defendants and the data obtained therefrom, that:
      1. 4,000 Newtons was the reasonable average rollover crush force delivered and extant in typical rollover crush accidents, when in fact defendants knew that the actual rollover impact forces were twice that number, i.e., at least 8,000 Newtons;
      2. That a videotaped excerpt from the testing data which showed substantial injuries being delivered to the head of a test subject were merely a contact patch, and not an actual instance of a rollover crush injury, when in fact Defendants knew at the time that this was not the case;
      3. That the roof strength of the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails which use half-sections of roll tubing ("OPEN SECTIONS") are just as secure and will prevent rollover crush injuries just as effectively as complete roll tubing ("CLOSED SECTIONS"), which said Defendants knew at the time was false;
      4. That the roof strength of the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails were just as effective and secure and would and did prevent rollover crush injuries just as effectively in a production model trucks as in a roll-caged trucks, when in fact said Defendants knew this was false.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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:
    • The test data conducted and upon which the MALIBU 2 TEST RESULTS were based, supported the conclusion that 4,000 Newtons was the reasonable average rollover crush force delivered and extant in typical rollover crush accidents, when in fact said defendants knew that the actual rollover impact forces were twice that number, i.e., at least 8,000 Newtons;
    • That the restraint systems in said Defendants' trucks, vans, and SUVs, including the SUBJECT VEHICLE, were effective to prevent head contact with the roof structures during times when rolling vehicles were inverted, when in fact said Defendants and each of them had used and implemented standing pelvis dummies which did not engage or place any genuine "loads" upon the restraint systems involved to begin with, for the purposes of falsely leading the public and governmental regulators into believing that existing restraint systems were adequate to mitigate roof crushing rollover injuries, when in fact Defendants knew that this was false;
    • Centrifugal forces extant in the genuinely prototypical rollover crush accident were insignificant, unreasonable angles and vectors of impact forces were appropriate and proper when said Defendants and each of them in fact knew that such angles and vectors were not representative of real accident conditions and understated and/or outright misrepresented real accident conditions so as to falsely lead the public and government regulators to conclude the roof structures were of adequate strength, when said Defendants knew this to be false, that drop testing procedures were injury irrelevant (as they were knowingly performed by said Defendants from unrealistic heights), and that rolling "spit" test procedures proved that members of the public would sustain injury regardless of roof component strength, when in fact Defendants knew at that time that all such conclusions were false.
  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, 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and further thereon alleges 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 "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.
  30. 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 Plaintiff, during the course of the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit.
  31. 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 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.
  32. 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 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, 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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and each of them, as follows.

  1. For special and economic damages including, medical expenses, loss of past and future earnings and earning capacity, according to proof at trial;
  2. For general damages including damages for personal injuries, pain and suffering and permanency;
  3. For exemplary damages against defendants GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and DOES 51 through 100;
  4. For prejudgment interest, as determined by and accrued according to applicable statutes;
  5. For costs of suit incurred herein, and;
  6. For any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: MAY, 2009 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

By:__________________________________
BRIAN D. CHASE, Esq.
SCOTT RITSEMA, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
DATED: MAY, 2009 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys


Was This Page Helpful? Yes | No

List of Defective Cars

Have a question that wasn't answered here?

Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys
1301 Dove St #120
Newport Beach, CA 92660

local: (949) 203-3814
Get Directions

See All Ratings And Awards

Connect

Copyright & Disclaimer

Disclaimer: The legal information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice, nor the formation of an 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. Bisnar Chase serves all of California. In addition, we represent clients in various other states through our affiliations with local law firms. Through the local firm we will be admitted to practice law in their state, pro hac vice.

Copyright © 1999-2016 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP - All rights reserved.
Location: 1301 Dove St. #120, Newport Beach, CA 92660 - Tel: (949) 203-3814

Website Design by: SLS ConsultingSLS Consulting