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

2001 Isuzu Rodeo Rollover Causes Passenger To Eject, Leads to Traumatic Injury

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

STACEY SCHROCK; and CHRISTINA) CASE NO: MONROE;) Plaintiffs,) [UNLIMITED CIVIL]
vs.
ISUZU MOTORS LIMITED, a Japanese) COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES; DEMAND corporation, ISUZU NORTH AMERICA) FOR JURY TRIAL CORPORATION, a California corporation; ) ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA, LLC, a) California limited liability company, which is ) the surviving entity following a merger with) Isuzu Motors America, Inc.; ISUZU) MANUFACTURING SERVICES OF) AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation; ) ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a) California Corporation; ISUZU TECHNICAL) CENTER OF AMERICA, INC., a California) Corporation; AMERICAN ISUZU MOTORS) INC., a California corporation; SUBARU OF ) INDIANA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., an Indiana ) corporation, formerly known as Subaru-Isuzu ) Automotive, Inc; FUJI HEAVY) INDUSTRIES, Ltd" a Japanese corporation; ) TAKATA CORPORATION, a Japanese) corporation; TK HOLDINGS, INC., a) Delaware corporation; TAKATA SEAT) BELTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; TI) HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, formerly known as Takata, Inc.; and DOES 1 ) to 100, inclusive, Defendants.

Come now, Plaintiffs STACEY SCHROCK and CHRISTINA MONROE, and for causes of action against defendants, allege as follows:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

  1. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiffs STACEY SCHROCK and CHRISTINA MONROE were, and are, individual residents of the State of Idaho.
  2. At all times relevant hereto Defendant ISUZU MOTORS LTD., was and is a foreign corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the country of Japan, with its primary place 15 of business and its principal office located in Tokyo, Japan and doing business in the State of California.
  3. At all times relevant hereto Defendant ISUZU NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION was and is a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with its primary place ofbusiness and its principal office located in Anaheim, California.
  4. Defendant ISUZU NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION is believed to be a wholly 21 owned subsidiary of Defendant Isuzu Motors Ltd., and its financial dealings are believed to be 22 reported on the consolidated financial statements ofIsuzu Motors Ltd.
  5. Defendant ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia, with its primary place ofbusiness and its principal office located in Anaheim, California. Plaintiffs have information and belief, and based thereon, allege that Isuzu Motors America, LLC., is the surviving entity following a merger or other corporate reorganization with Isuzu Motors America, Inc.
  6. At all times relevant hereto Defendant ISUZU MANUFACTURING SERVICES OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AMERICA, INC. was and is a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with its primary place ofbusiness and its principal office located in Anaheim, California.
  7. At all times relevant hereto Defendant ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA, INC. was and is a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws ofthe State of California, with its primary place of business and its principal office located in California.
  8. At all times relevant hereto Defendant ISUZU TECHNICAL CENTER OF AMERICA, INC. was and is a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of California, with its primary place of business and its principal office located in California.
  9. At all times relevant hereto Defendant AMERICAN ISUZU MOTORS INC. was and lOis a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws ofthe State of California, with its primary place of business and its principal office located in California.
  10. At all times relevant hereto Defendant SUBARU OF INDIANA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., was and is a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws ofthe State of Indiana, with its primary place of business and its principal office located in Lafayette, Indiana and doing business in California.
  11. At all times relevant hereto Defendant FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., was and is a foreign corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the country of Japan, with its 18 primary place of business and its principal office located in Tokyo, Japan and doing business in the State of California.
  12. At all relevant times hereto Defendants FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., and ISUZU MOTORS LTD. were engaged in a joint venture whereby they were an association oftwo or more entities carrying out a single business enterprise for profit or mutual benefit, for which purpose they combined their property, money, effects, skill and knowledge. As a consequence ofentering into such a joint venture, Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., and 1suzu Motors Ltd. created SUBARU-ISUZU AUTOMOTIVE, INC., (now known as Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc.) whereby Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., is believed to have had a 51% interest in said joint venture, and Isuzu Motors Limited is believed to have had a 49% interest. Plaintiffs have information and belief and, based thereon, allege that Defendant Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc., assembled the 2001 Isuzu Rodeo at issue in this case.
  13. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant TAKATA CORPORATION was and is a foreign corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the country of Japan, with its primary place of business and its principal office located in Tokyo,Japan and doing business in Idaho.
  14. At all times relevant hereto defendant TK HOLDINGS, INC., was and is a foreign corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its primary place of business and its principal office located in Greensboro, North Carolina and doing business in Idaho.
  15. Plaintiffs have information and belief and, based thereon, allege that TK Holdings,Inc., a so-called holding company, is believed to be a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Takata Corporation and doing business in Idaho, and its financial dealings are believed to be reported on the consolidated financial statements of Takata Corporation.
  16. At all times relevant hereto Defendant TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC. was and is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, and, although its President is believed to be situated in Westport, Connecticut, its primary place ofbusiness and its principal office is believed to be located in San Antonio, Texas. Plaintiffs have information and belief and, based thereon, allege that Takata Seat Belts, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of and/or otherwise related to TK Holdings, Inc.
  17. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate associate, governmental or otherwise of defendants Does I to 100, inclusive and each of them are unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and/or capacities of said defendants are ascertained, Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend the Complaint accordingly.
  18. 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 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.
  19. Plaintiffs are 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, service, 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.
  20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based thereupon, allege that at all times mentioned herein each ofthe defendants, including Defendant DOES I to 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 ofsaid 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.
  21. Plaintiffs have information and belief and, based thereon, allege that Isuzu Motors Limited, Isuzu North American Corporation Isuzu Motors America, LLC, (through its predecessor Isuzu Motors America, Inc.), Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (through its predecessor Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc.), Isuzu Manufacturing Services of America, Inc., Isuzu Manufacturing Services of America, Inc., Isuzu Motors America, Inc., Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc., American Isuzu Motors Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Takata Seat Belts, Inc., TI Holdings, Inc., and DOES 1 to 100, and each ofthem, either individually, collectively or through joint venture, designed, tested, manufactured, distributed, sold or assembled a certain 2001 Isuzu Rodeo, VIN 4S2DM58WX14258815, License Plate No: 2TF5404, (hereinafter called "the SUBJECT RODEO") and/or its component parts and assemblies thereof, including but not limited to seat belts and buckles of the TI-K003 Model manufactured by the Takata defendants, 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. Isuzu Motors Limited, Isuzu North American Corporation Isuzu Motors America, LLC, (through its predecessor Isuzu Motors America, Inc.), Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (through its predecessor Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc.), Isuzu Manufacturing Services ofAmerica, Inc., Isuzu Manufacturing Services ofAmerica, Inc., Isuzu Motors America, Inc., Isuzu Technical Center ofAmerica, Inc., American Isuzu Motors Inc. and Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as "Isuzu" andlor as "the Isuzu Defendants" and the allegations hereafter made against one of these parties shall be deemed to have been made with equal effect against each of the other said entities as well.
  22. 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 RODEO, nor did said Defendants ever advise Plaintiffs that the vehicle was not mechanically sound or that the vehicle was unsafe to operate.
  23. On or about October 24, 2008, at approximately 11:51 P.M., Plaintiffs were occupants II of the SUBJECT RODEO, traveling westbound on Interstate 84 near Highway 27, in or near the town of Burely, County of Minidoka, Idaho. Plaintiffs were properly-restrained occupants of the SUBJECT RODEO while it was traveling at highway speeds when an event occurred caused Christa Springer, who was driving the SUBJECT RODEO, to lose control ofthe SUBJECT RODEO into or toward the center median, after which the driver, overcorrected right and then left and then back to the right in an effort to gain control. The vehicle went into a non-recoverable broadside skid and continued to rotate clockwise, tripped and rolled and ejected the Plaintiffs causing severe and traumatic injuries to Plaintiffs. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, serious personal injuries were caused thereby to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, and each ofthem,have incurred the cost o fmedical, physical, and nursing care reasonably necessary to treat their injuries, and will require such services in the future. Plaintiffs, and each of them, have lost wages and the ability to earn wages, and will suffer such losses in the future. Plaintiffs have suffered other special damages. In addition, Plaintiffs have suffered pain, disfigurement, loss of mobility, impairment in and loss of the use of their bodies, and other general damages. All such damages are sought in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
  24. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

    (Against all Defendants)

  25. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each of paragraphs 1 through 24, above, as though fully set forth herein.
  26. Defendants, and each ofthem, knew that the SUBJECT RODEO was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by the users of that vehicle.
  27. The SUBJECT RODEO and each ofits 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.
  28. These SUBJECT DEFECTS included, but were not limited to the following.
    • Insufficient lateral and roll stability so as to keep the vehicle upright during cornering and handling by an ordinary driver during reasonably foreseeable roadway and traffic 16 conditions, which Defendants at all times knew and were aware could and did cause substantial severe and life-threatening internal injuries when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner by a passenger of 18 its vehicles, and which Defendants and each ofthem further knew and were aware would fail to keep the vehicle upright during cornering and handling by an ordinary driver during reasonably foreseeable roadway and traffic conditions. Despite the availability to defendants ofthe technology to include a vehicle stability enhancement system, which uses an array ofsensors coupled with a master electronic control module to constantly monitor the driver's steering commands, and applies brake pressure and adjusts engine torque to help the driver get the vehicle back on track in the event of loss of lateral traction (side slip), understeer (plowing), or oversteer (fishtailing), defendants did not include such available electronic stability control systems in the SUBJECT RODEO, which systems would have prevented the roll over and side slip accident and the serious personal injuries sustained by plaintiffs during the accident sequence.
    • Defective and unsafe seats and seat backs, which failed to perform during the accident sequence, causing the each plaitniff's head and body to be forced back into the rear passenger compartment and causing their body to slide off the seat and be thrown into the window, facilitating their total ejection. Despite the availability of simple methods to correct the defects, as recommended by defendants' own automotive engineers: defendants could have used wider and stronger metal for the seat cushion frames and could have strengthened the point at which the seat back connects to the cushion frame, the point at which the seat slides back and forth, and the point at which the seat fastens to the floor, and in spite ofthe known risk of serious and fatal spinal injuries and occupant ejection, defendants chose to ignore the inherent safety problem, and took no action to prevent such debilitating injuries and deaths, because of concern about cost penalties.
    • Defective and unsafe restraint system, which defendants and each ofthem knew and were aware would fail to restrain an occupant in the SUBJECT RODEO in the event ofa roll-over and/or side-slip/skid event, which would cause the seat to collapse rearward, and which, in this case, failed to restrain and protect the Plaintiffs and which further facilitated the total ejection of Plaintiffs during the accident sequence;
    • Defective and unsafe use oftempered glass and glazing deficiencies in the side and rear windows, which glass totally failed during the accident sequence, opening portals for plaintiffs' rejection and serious injuries, which glass and glazing defendants knew and were aware would fail and create openings for occupant ejection in the event of a roll-over and/or side slip/skid or rear impact accident, and which in this case, did create a portal and opening allowing the Plaintiffs to be totally ejected during the accident sequence, and causing fatal injuries and death. Despite the availability to defendants of the knowledge and technology to use laminated glass or protective glazing, defendants did not include laminated glass or protective glazing in the side and rear windows of the SUBJECT RODEO, which laminated glass and/or proper glazing would have prevented the total ejection of the decedent' body during the roll over and side slip/skid accident and the serious injuries sustained by Plaintiffs during the accident sequence;
  29. Said product and each of its component parts was 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 RODEO and each ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING EXEMPLARY DAMAGES PRAYER BY PLAINTIFFS Against all Defendants
  30. Plaintiffs are further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and 15 each of them, intentionally engaged in conduct which, with respect to the SUBJECT DEFECTS, 16 Plaintiffs allege was a legal cause of their loss, damages, and serious physical injuries and harm, 17 exposed Plaintiffs and other users ofthe SUBJECT RODEO to serious potential danger known to the Defendants in order to advance the Defendants' pecuniary interests and thus acted with a conscious 19 disregard for the safety of the Plaintiffs, and other users of the SUBJECT RODEO, warranting an award of exemplary damages against Defendants, and each of them, pursuantto California Civil Code 21 § 3294, and the rule enunciated in Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 374, 22 381-382 and PPG Industries, Inc v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1996) 49 Cal. AppAth 1120. The facts supporting the Defendants' intentional conduct which exposed plaintiffs and other users of the SUBJECT RODEO to serious potential danger known to the Defendants in order to advance the Defendants' pecuniary interests, are on information and belief, as follows.
  31. Since the inception of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301 [fueltank 27 integrity rear impact test], defendants and each of them have known that in rear impacts ono miles per hour, each and every one of defendants' seat backs in each and every one of defendants' vehicles failed, and catapulted backwards, collapsing flat down into the rear seat cushions, causing major spinal, head and neck injuries. Since at least 1968, Defendants and each ofthem have known that the seats and seat backs of their vehicles were of insufficient strength to withstand rear end collisions of 30 miles per hour (mph) or greater. In 1968, a GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION engineer, Thomas Ruster, prepared a memorandum in which he advised the management of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION that a potential hazard exists in rear end collisions ono mph or greater, as the occupant's head is being forced into the rear seat cushion, after the occupant has slid off of the front seat, with possible damage to the spine. In addition, Mr. Ruster advised manufacturers that loss of control of the vehicle is a further risk since while the occupant is in the horizontal position, he can no longer reach the vehicle controls, causing second and otherwise avoidable accident. Additionally, while the occupant is in the horizontal position, there is a total failure ofthe restraint system since the shoulder harness is attached to the vehicle's frame and cannot function with the seat in the horizontal position.
  32. Recommendations were made to enhance the strength of the seats and seat backs by strengthening the seats and seat backs at the three locations where they fail: the connection between the seat back and cushion frame, the seat track connection where the seat slides forward and back, and the point at which the seat fastens to the floor. For the cost of approximately $50 -$100, defendants could have used wider and stronger metal for the seat cushion frames and could have strengthened the point at which the seat back connects to the cushion frame, the point at which the seat slides back and forth, and the point at which the seat fastens to the floor. Despite the recommendations of defendants' own automotive engineers, and in spite of the known risk of serious and fatal spinal injuries, and occupant ejection, defendants chose to ignore the inherent safety problem, and took no action to prevent such debilitating injuries and deaths, because of concern about cost penalties. Defendants' decision to save money at the expense of innocent human life and pain and suffering constitutes, despicable conduct and callous disregard for the safety ofthe motoring public, including the Plaintiffs. Defendants have failed to act for years and have conspired to resist obvious major opportunities to improve motor vehicle safety by improving the seats and seat backs of their vehicles, all to advance their own pecuniary interests. Had defendants taken the reeommendations of automotive engineers, ineluding their own engineers, the plaintiffs' seats would not have totally failed during the aecident sequence, forcing her into the horizontal position, and totally ejecting their bodies out of the SUBJECT RODEO., with the seat belt still fastened.
  33. Defendants also ignored and suppressed data regarding the deaths and serious injuries due to partial and total ejection of occupants through the side and rear windows of vehieles during rollover and side impact accidents due to the use of defective glass and glazing in those windows.
  34. Since 1970, defendants and each of them have been aware that use of tempered side and rear window glass was contributing to serious occupant ejection problems in side impact and rollover accidents. In 1970, Roger P. Daniel, a Ford research engineer, published the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Technical Paper 700423, which defendants and each ofthem received and/or participated in, in which Mr. Daniel reported that "the increasing use of unsupported tempered side glass appears to have adversely influenced the frequency of partial and complete occupant ejection through the side glass areas." Mr. Daniel recommended that in order to better retain vehiele occupants completely within the passenger compartment during accidents, the use of a substantial metal framework along with the use of laminated glass, similar to that used in current American windshields, would achieve maximum durability and minimum laceration potential. In spite of the elear explanation of the problem and a feasible solution that would save lives, defendants and each ofthem ignored such data and have failed to take action to use appropriate materials to prevent vehiele occupant ejection by using laminated glass or ejection resistant glazing.
  35. In addition, in 1984, the U.S. Government, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published SAE Technical Paper 840390; and in 1985, SAE Technical Paper 851203, and in 1989, SAE Technical Paper 890218, which set forth the analysis and testing by NHTSA Researchers Carl C. Clark and Peter Sursi, of alternative glazing opportunities to reduce or eliminate ejection and resulting injuries and fatalities. In the 1989 report, NHTSA advised defendants that ejection was involved in about 25% of all passenger car fatalities and 40% of light truck and van fatalities and that ejection through glass areas, in a specific passenger car study, accounted for about 60% of all ejections. NHTSA reported their own dynamic roll over tests demonstrating that either laminated windshield-type glass or other glass-plastic glazing could eliminate most ejections through glass openings. Defendants and each of them received and/or participated in, these NHTSA studies and SAE Technical Papers and in spite of this knowledge and awareness, defendants ignored and suppressed data, and further falsely mis-characterized adverse test data which the Defendants knew at the time tended to prove that the glass being used in the rear and side windows oftheir trucks, vans, sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and Pick-Ups were defective and unsafe in real world rollover and/or side skid accidents, and would and did expose members ofthe public and users of said Defendants' trucks, SUVs and vans to death and serious head and spinal injuries due to the insufficient, defective and unsafe glass being used in such vehicles.
  36. Moreover, after defendants, in concert with other auto manufacturers, provided no constructive response to the NHTSA data on elimination of most ejections through glass openings, NHTSA convened a public meeting in Washington, D.C., in 1996, during which NHTSA presented detailed test data, cost analysis and manufacturing lead time data on several alternative glazing proposals, estimating the reduction in fatalities and incapacitating injuries that would result from improved glazing. For rollover accident fatalities, an 86% reduction was projected for the driver and a 90% reduction for passengers, as was plaintiffs. For incapacitating injuries in rollovers, NHTSA projected a 68% reduction for drivers and a 63% reduction for passengers. Defendants' representatives were present at this meeting and simply responded that all drivers and passengers do not always use seat belts, flatly ignoring those statistics that evidence the drivers and passengers who do wear seat belts are injured or killed due to the defective restraint systems that are defective and fail, as set forth herein. Infact, many partially ejected and fatally or seriously injured occupants, such as the plaintiffs, are in fact belted, yet those restraint systems fail.
  37. In August 1999, NHTSA published a report entitled, Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing: Status Report II, which estimates that laminated glass or other advanced glazing systems would reduce annual fatalities by 500 to 1300 each year. Defendants, again, received and/or participated in this report, yet the only reason defendants have not used inherently safer laminated glass or other alternative glazing is and was to save money in an environment where they knew, through various questionable inter-manufacturer contacts, that their competition would similarly save money rather than use readily available technology to save lives and prevent injuries.
  38. Despite the longstanding reeommendations ofknowledgeable and earing automotive engineers, and in spite ofthe known roll over propensity ofdefendants' light trucks, vans and SUVs, defendants chose to ignore the inherent safety problem of roll over oeeupant ejection, and took no action to prevent sueh debilitating injuries and deaths, because of concern about cost penalties. Defendants' decision to save money at the expense of innocent human life and pain and suffering constitutes, despicable conduct and callous disregard for the safety ofthe motoring public, including the Plaintiffs. Defendants' failure to act is enhanced by the similar acts of their competitors, and is shameful and shocking that such a large, powerful and influential industry has for years conspired to resist obvious major opportunities to improve motor vehicle safety by improving glazing in automobiles, trucks, vans and SUV s, all to advance their own pecuniary interest.
  39. 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 ofconsumers and users of said Defendants' trucks, vans and SUVs, including the SUBJECT RODEO, 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, including but not limited to Plaintiffs decedent during the course of the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit.
  40. Plaintiff further alleges that the conduct of the defendants was undertaken with the result that the SUBJECT RODEO'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 RODEO.
  41. As a direct and legal result ofthe aforementioned conduct of Defendants and each of them, an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, and each of them, is proper and appropriate to punish said Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, Defendants legally caused the serious injuries suffered by Plaintiffs in the SUBJECT ACCIDENT, in turn legally resulting in Plaintiffs' damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants and each ofthem, as follows.

  1. For special and economic damages including but not limited to past and future medical expenses, loss of past and future wages and earning ability, and other special damages according to proof at trial;
  2. For general damages including pain, suffering, emotional and mental distress, disfigurement, loss offunction, impairment of use, and other general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdiction amount of this Court according to proof at trial;
  3. For prejudgment interest, as determined by and accrued according to applicable statutes;
  4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
  5. For any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
  6. Exemplary and punitive damages against defendants, and each of them.

DATED: October 22, 2010 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by a 12-person jury.

DATED: October 22, 2010 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