En Español

Personal Injury Legal Cases

2003 Ford Expedition Tire Defect Causes Rollover, Leads to Roof Crush And Catastrophic Head Injury

Attorneys for Plaintiffs GRISELDA BERNARDINO, JESUS OROZCO;
AYARI MARTINEZ; ALONSO MARTINEZ;
MELISSA SANCHEZ; DIANA OROZCO;
BIANCA OROZCO; and MALENI ELIZARDI

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT

GRISELDA BERNARDINO, JESUS OROZCO; AYARI MARTINEZ; ALONSO MARTINEZ; MELISSA SANCHEZ; DIANA OROZCO, a minor; BIANCA OROZCO, a minor; MALENI ELIZARDI, a minor, by and through their guardian ad litem, GRISELDA BERNARDINO, Plaintiffs,
vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; CONTINENTAL TIRE OF NORTH AMERICA; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC.; CHINO HILLS FORD, INC;. BECERIL TIRE SHOP; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

CASE NO. CIVRS 908505
UNLIMITED CIVIL]

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

  1. Strict Product Liability
  2. Negligent Product Liability
  3. Negligence
  4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
  5. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties

COME NOW Plaintiffs, GRISELDA BERNARDINO, JESUS OROZCO; AYARI MARTINEZ; ALONSO MARTINEZ; MELISSA SANCHEZ; DIANA OROZCO; BIANCA OROZCO; and, MALENI ELIZARDI, and for causes of action against defendants, and each of them, allege as follows.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

  1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs GRISELDA BERNARDINO, JESUS OROZCO; AYARI MARTINEZ; ALONSO MARTINEZ; DIANA OROZCO; BIANCA OROZCO;
  2. MALENI ELIZARDI were and are individuals and residents of the City of Chino, County of San Bernardino, State of California.
  3. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff, MELISSA SANCHEZ, was and is an individual and resident of the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, State of California.
  4. At all times mentioned herein this Complaint, Defendant, FORD MOTOR COMPANY was and is a Corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan, and was at all times herein mentioned authorized and/or qualified to do business, and was and is doing business, in the State of California.
  5. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CONTINENTAL TIRE OF NORTH AMERICA was and is a Corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio, with a principal place of business is Charlotte, North Carolina., and was at all times herein mentioned authorized and/or qualified to do business, and was and is doing business, in the State of California.
  6. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC was and is corporation authorized and/or qualified to do business and/or were doing business in the State of California with principal places of business in the City of Phoenix, State of Arizona and was at all times herein mentioned authorized and/or qualified to do business, and was and is doing business, in the State of California.
  7. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CHINO HILLS FORD, INC. was and is corporation authorized and/or qualified to do business and/or were doing business in the State of California with principal places of business in the City of Chino Hills, State of California and was at all times herein mentioned authorized and/or qualified to do business, and was and is doing business, in the State of California.
  8. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant BECERIL TIRE SHOP was and is corporation authorized and/or qualified to do business and/or were doing business in the State of California with principal places of business in the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, State of California and was at all times herein mentioned authorized and/or qualified to do business, and was and is doing business, in the State of California.
  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, FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DOES 1 through 100, were and are engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, inspecting, servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, modifying, aftermarket equipping and modifying, leasing, renting, selling, retailing, wholesaling and advertising a certain subject 2003 Ford Expedition Heavy Sport Utility Vehicle (as well as and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides) California License No. 5BOX460, VIN 1FMRU17W33LA62079 (hereinafter, "SUBJECT EXPEDITION") 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. On or about August 1, 2007, at the hour of approximately 3:45 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, on Interstate 15 Southbound 580 feet north of Micro Ditch, in an unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino, Plaintiff, GRISELDA BERNARDINO, was driving the SUBJECT EXPEDITION within the legal speed limit, when the left rear tire tread fully separated from the tire which caused the vehicle to initially veer left, causing Plaintiff to lose control of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION as a result of a dynamic oversteer resulting from the lateral instability of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, which was beyond the recovery capabilities of Plaintiff as a nonprofessional driver, which eventually caused the vehicle's tires to exceed their maximum cornering speed causing the vehicle in turn to roll due to its low Static Stability Factor ("SSF"), i.e., high center of gravity and comparatively narrow wheel base. As a result of the roll of the vehicle the roof of the vehicle, which was designed and manufactured with insufficient strength in its "A", "B", "C" and "D" pillars, windshield headers and roof rails, was incapable of withstanding the weight of the vehicle when inverted and was caused thereby to crush inward toward the vehicle's occupants, including Plaintiff ALONSO MARTINEZ, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe and permanent crushing head and spinal injuries.
  15. As a further result of the roll of the vehicle, plaintiffs, AYARI MARTINEZ; ALONSO MARTINEZ; DIANA OROZCO; BIANCA OROZCO; MALENI ELIZARDI were ejected from the vehicle, and the other passengers were partially ejected, sustaining major injuries including major laceration injuries.
  16. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Strict Product Liability against Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY; CONTINENTAL TIRE OF NORTH AMERICA; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC.; CHINO HILLS FORD, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive)

  17. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each of paragraphs 1 through 14, above, as though fully set forth herein.
  18. Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY; CONTINENTAL TIRE OF NORTH AMERICA; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC.; CHINO HILLS FORD, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive and each of them, knew that said SUBJECT EXPEDITION was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by the users of that vehicle including but not limited to Plaintiffs GRISELDA BERNARDINO, JESUS OROZCO; AYARI MARTINEZ; ALONSO MARTINEZ; MELISSA SANCHEZ; DIANA OROZCO; BIANCA OROZCO; MALENI ELIZARDI.
  19. The SUBJECT EXPEDITION and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides mentioned was manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, modified, aftermarket modified, 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.
  20. These SUBJECT DEFECTS included, but were not limited to.
    • The "A", "B", "C" and "D" pillars/windshield headers and roof rails were designed and fabricated without sufficient strength and structural integrity to withstand roof crushing forces without imparting injury-producing forces upon vehicle occupants during foreseeable accident rollovers of such vehicles, which rollover propensities where significantly heightened, as Defendants and each of them well knew at the time of manufacture, by the relatively low SSF of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION.
    • The SUBJECT EXPEDITION was designed and manufactured with insufficient lateral and roll stability so as to keep the vehicle upright during cornering and handling by an ordinary driver during reasonable foreseeable roadway and traffic conditions, including, but not limited to, evasive driving maneuvers at freeway speeds undertaken to avoid collisions from encroaching vehicles.
    • The SUBJECT EXPEDITION did not have Electronic Stability Control ("ESC") installed (termed by FORD the "AdvanceTrac" electronic stability enhancement system), which ESC was not only technologically feasible, but was readily available and offered as an option by FORD in the 2003 Model Year Expedition, including the SUBJECT EXPEDITION at relatively little additional cost, which ESC was touted by FORD as addressing the following conditions: "If the system senses oversteer or understeer, it automatically adjusts braking and throttle to match the vehicle"s direction to the driver's intention. Translation: It helps you maintain control…" Such ESC system, had it been installed in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, would have dampened and mitigated the dynamic oscillations and oversteer in the laterally unstable SUBJECT EXPEDITION sufficiently so as to have prevented Plaintiff's loss of control and rollover following her evasive maneuver, causing the ensuing rollover accident and plaintiffs' resulting injuries. Such optional ESC "AdvanceTrac" system should have been standard, not optional equipment on the SUBJECT EXPEDITION given the enhanced and advanced aforementioned lateral instability and rollover propensities of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION known to the Defendants and the purchase purpose of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, for use by inexperienced drivers with large loads and many passengers.
    • Defective and unsafe restraint system, including but not limited to seat buckles, seat belts, shoulder belts and retractors, defects including but not limited to false latching, inertial unlatching, inadvertent unlatching, lack of pre-tensioners, and retractor failure, which defendants and each of them knew and were aware would fail to restrain an occupant in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION in the event of a roll-over and/or side-slip/skid accident, and which, in this case, failed to restrain the plaintiffs, and which further facilitated the ejection of their bodies during the accident sequence.
    • Defective and unsafe use of tempered glass and glazing deficiencies in the side windows, which glass totally failed during the accident sequence and lack of side curtain air bags, shattering and cutting the plaintiffs' and causing serious injury, which glass and glazing defendants knew and were aware would fail, shatter and create openings for occupant ejection in the event of a rear/side impact accident, and which in this case, did fail, shatter and cut and lacerate plaintiffs' during the accident sequence, and causing serious and permanent injuries. 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 windows of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, which laminated glass and/or proper glazing would have prevented the total shattering of the side window during the side impact collision and the serious injuries to the plaintiffs, sustained by the plaintiffs during the accident sequence.
    • Defective and unsafe door latch on the front driver's side door that failed to hold the door on the vehicle during the roll over accident sequence.
    • Defective and unsafe seats and seat backs, which failed to perform during the accident sequence, causing plaintiff JESUS OROZCO severe neck and other injury. 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 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.
    • There were manufacturing defect in the tire in question at the time it left the possession of defendants, and each of them, that was a legal cause of plaintiffs' damages in this case. Specifically, due to its manufactured condition, the tire in question was unreasonably dangerous in that it was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user of such tires, with ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the tire's characteristics. The manufacture defects in the tire have been inherent in the Continental ContiTrac SUV tire since its manufacture and have resulted in tire's departure from its plan. There is a cracked interliner splice in the Continental ContiTrac SUV tire at issue.
  21. The belts are improperly placed and improperly spliced in the Continental ContiTrac SUV tire at issue.

    There was air or moisture (or both) trapped in between the rubber components of Continental ContiTrac SUV tire during its manufacture.

    The Continental ContiTrac SUV tire was defective in manufacture in that it lacked proper adhesion of the steel belts to surrounding material resulting in tread belt separation and catastrophic failure during normal use.

    The Continental ContiTrac SUV tire failed to incorporate sufficient rubber at the belt edges, failed to include sufficient and proper gum edge strips to reduce the hazard of tread belt separation constituting a design defect.

    There have been numerous witness statements and sworn depositions taken of Continental employees and ex-employees from the Mayfield plant who have testified about the substandard manufacturing conditions and practices at Continental's Mayfield tire plant.

    At the time of the crash, the tire was in substantially the same condition as it was at the time it was placed into the stream of commerce, and no material alterations were made to the tire after it left the possession of Continental, and after it left the possession of Ford, and after it left the possession of Chino Hills Ford, Inc.

    Moreover, at the time the Continental ContiTrac SUV tire at issue left the possession of Continental, there were safer alternative designs other than the designs used in the tire at issue which would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of the tread separation that resulted in the plaintiffs' damages without substantially impairing the tire's utility.

    These alternative designs were both economically and technologically feasible by the application of existing or reasonably achievable scientific knowledge at the time the Continental ContiTrac SUV tire at issue left the control of Continental.

    Safer alternative designs include the use of a belt skim rubber compound more resistant to heat and less susceptible to degrading from ozone and other factors, the use of a thicker gauged belt skim rubber, the use of extra thickness of rubber as insulation at the belt edges, and the use of a belt edge wrap.

  22. Defendants and each of them, despite their awareness of the aforementioned dangers and defects in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, failed to give any warnings to Plaintiffs and/or other purchasers and users of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION of the aforementioned dangers and defects in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION.
  23. Said product and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides 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 EXPEDITION, and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides were used by Plaintiffs on or about August 1, 2007, as intended or in a reasonable foreseeable manner, the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, during reasonably foreseeable driving maneuvers, was dangerous and did suffer a loss of lateral control, and did rollover in a roof crushing crash.
  24. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, severe and permanent injuries were caused thereby to Plaintiffs ALONZO MARTINEZ and MELISSA SANCHEZ, including physical and mental injuries to their body and mind, and serious personal injuries were caused to the other passengers in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, all in turn legally resulting in plaintiffs' special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
  25. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, severe and permanent injuries were caused thereby to the remaining Plaintiffs including physical and mental injuries to their bodies and minds, and serious personal injuries were caused to the other passengers in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, all in turn legally resulting in plaintiffs' special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
  26. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides, Plaintiffs ALONZO MARTINEZ and MELISSA SANCHEZ, have suffered and will continue to suffer past and will suffer in the future special damages for medical expenses, the expense of other rehabilitation, palliative, or curative care, and a loss of earnings and a loss of earning capacity, in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
  27. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides, the remaining Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer past and will suffer in the future special damages for medical expenses, the expense of other rehabilitation, palliative, or curative care, and a loss of earnings and a loss of earning capacity, in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial.
  28. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff JESUS OROZCO has suffered a loss of his wife's consortium, including a loss of love, companionship, comfort, attention, society, solace, moral support, and a loss of sexual relations, and has further suffered the loss of his wife's assistance in the operation and maintenance of their home, all to Plaintiff's damages in a sum which shall be determined accord to proof at trial.
  29. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff GRISELDA BERNARDINO has suffered a loss of her husband's consortium, including a loss of love, companionship, comfort, attention, society, solace, moral support, and a loss of sexual relations, and has further suffered the loss of her husband's assistance in the operation and maintenance of their home, all to Plaintiff's damages in a sum which shall be determined accord to proof at trial.
  30. ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING EXEMPLARY DAMAGES PRAYER

    AGAINST DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, ONLY

  31. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DOES 1 through 25, and each of them intentionally engaged in conduct which, with respect to the SUBJECT DEFECTS which Plaintiffs allege above were a legal cause of their loss, damages, injuries and harm, exposed Plaintiffs and other users of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION to serious potential danger known to the 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 EXPEDITION, warranting an award of exemplary damages against Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 25 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 EXPEDITION to serious potential danger known to the Defendants in order to advance the Defendants' pecuniary interests, are on information and belief, as follows.
  32. 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 of them 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 vehicle 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 clear explanation of the problem and a feasible solution that would save lives, defendants and each of them ignored such data and have failed to take action to use appropriate materials to prevent vehicle occupant ejection by using laminated glass or ejection resistant glazing.
  33. 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 NHSTA 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 of their 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 of the 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.
  34. 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, such as Plaintiff's, that would result from improved glazing. For rollover accident fatalities, an 86% reduction was projected for the driver and a 90% reduction for passengers. For incapacitating injuries in rollovers, such as Plaintiff's permanent paralysis, 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. In fact, many partially ejected and fatally or seriously injured occupants, such as plaintiff, STEELE O'NEAL, are in fact belted, yet those restraint systems fail.
  35. 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.
  36. Despite the longstanding recommendations of knowledgeable and caring automotive engineers, and in spite of the known roll over propensity of Defendants' light trucks, vans and SUVs, defendants chose to ignore the inherent safety problem of roll over occupant ejection, 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 of the motoring public, including 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 SUVs, all to advance their own pecuniary interest.
  37. Defendants have also 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 sport utility vehicles ("SUVs") manufactured by said Defendants and each of them, including but not limited to, the SUBJECT EXPEDITION 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 SUBJECT EXPEDITION were and are actually used by such users of these trucks and members of the public as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
  38. Since 1968, Defendants and each of them have known and been placed upon notice contemporaneously as a result of the information described hereinabove, that the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails of such trucks, vans, and SUVs, and SUBJECT EXPEDITION, 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 SUBJECT EXPEDITION were and are actually being used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
  39. In or about 1983 and 1984, Chrysler and Anthony Sances of the Medical College of Wisconsin published industry studies of which Defendant 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 SUBJECT EXPEDITION, 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 SUBJECT EXPEDITION were and are actually use of such vehicles as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
  40. In or about 1984, Defendants and each of them, published and/or participated and/or received 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 SUBJECT EXPEDITION so as to be able to withstand rollover crush forces of 4,000 Newtons.
  41. 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 SUBJECT EXPEDITION, 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 SUBJECT EXPEDITION were and are actually being used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
  42. 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 and/or participated in and/or received position papers detailing rollover roof crush studies claimed to have performed in-house (during calendar years 1983 and 1984) (hereinafter "MALIBU 1 TEST RESULTS"). Said Defendants and other automakers, 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;
  43. Defendants and each of them, individually and in concert with other automakers, 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 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 1 TEST RESULTS due to the insufficient strength of the A-Pillars/Windshield headers and roof rails in such vehicles.
  44. 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, individually and in concert with other automakers, 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.
  45. In 1990, Defendants and each of them again published and/or participated in and/or received second positions paper detailing rollover roof crush studies said Defendants and other automakers 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:
    1. 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;
    2. That the restraint systems in said Defendants' trucks, vans, and SUVs 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;
    3. Centrifugal forces extant in the genuinely prototypical rollover crush accident were insignificant, unreasonably 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 falsely to 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.
  46. Defendants and each of them, individually and in concert with other automakers, 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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 on information and belief 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.
  50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and further thereon allege that, from 1987 onward, Defendants conducted studies and analyses 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 FMVSS 216 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 EXPEDITION 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 EXPEDITION's roof to be able to withstand foreseeable and statistically inevitable real world roof crush events, in order to effectuate cost saving 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 above, Defendants and each of them advertised and marketed their vehicles as safe, rugged and "Ford Tough," which in fact Defendants knew at all times they were making such representations that their SUBJECT EXPEDITION and other similar trucks and SUVs 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.
  51. Plaintiffs further allege that, at the time of manufacture of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, Defendants and each of them had available ESC for use and installation in the SUBJECT VEHICLE (termed by FORD the "AdvanceTrac" electronic stability enhancement system), which ESC was not only technologically feasible, but was readily available and offered as an option by FORD in the 2003 Model Year Expedition, including the SUBJECT EXPEDITION at relatively little additional cost, which ESC was touted by FORD as addressing the following conditions: "If the system senses oversteer or understeer, it automatically adjusts braking and throttle to match the vehicle's direction to the driver's intention. Translation: It helps you maintain control…" Such ESC system, had it been installed in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, would have dampened and mitigated the dynamic oscillations and oversteer in the laterally unstable SUBJECT EXPEDITION sufficiently so as to have prevented Plaintiff's loss of control and rollover following her evasive maneuver, causing the ensuing rollover accident and Plaintiff's resulting injuries. Defendants at all times herein relevant knew such ESC could and would mitigate and dampen the effects of lateral instability in its SUVs including, but not limited to, the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, and which could have and would have likely prevented the oversteer and understeer highly foreseeable in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION arising as a result of its known lateral instability, and which ESC Defendants knew would be likely to avoid rollover accidents arising from such lateral instability, which rollover accidents in such vehicles, Defendants and each of them at all times herein relevant knew, would like result in total roof crush and resulting serious and/or fatal injuries to occupants of such vehicles, thus heightening the accident and roof-crush prevention propensities of said vehicles as a whole. Although the marginal cost per vehicle associated with incorporation of such readily-available and optional ESC into Defendants' vehicle, including but not limited to, the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, was extremely low, i.e., from $100 to $400 per vehicle, Defendants and each of them, nonetheless willfully failed and refused to incorporate ESC into such vehicles as standard equipment, despite Defendants' knowledge that such ESC could and would prevent a multitude of accidents and severe and/or fatal injuries arising from foreseeable lateral instability and resulting rollover and roof crush accidents, including the accident involving Plaintiff and the SUBJECT EXPEDITION. Such optional ESC "AdvanceTrac" system should have been standard, not optional equipment on the SUBJECT EXPEDITION given the enhanced and advanced aforementioned lateral instability and rollover propensities of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION known to the Defendants and the purchase purpose of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, i.e., for rental to members of the public inexperienced with the aforementioned lateral instability and rollover propensities of the SUBJECT EXPEDITION and/or of unknown and/or undisclosed driving experience. As a result, Defendants thus willfully exposed Plaintiff and other members of the general public to the risks of death and serious injury arising from such foreseeable and inevitable accidents, all for the advancement of Defendants' pecuniary interests in the form of avoidance of diminished sales associated with slightly higher sticker prices, potential further warranty repair expense of ESC systems, and avoidance of taking action which would potentially be perceived as remedial of the known lateral instability and rollover and roof crush propensities of Defendants' SUVs and light trucks, including the SUBJECT EXPEDITION thus potentially increasing the Defendants' liability exposure in lawsuits arising from the lateral instability, rollover and roof crush characteristics of the Defendants' SUVs and light trucks, including the SUBJECT EXPEDITION.
  52. The actions of said Defendants and each of them, as hereinabove 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 EXPEDITION, in order to advance the pecuniary gains of the Defendants and each of them, and we despicable because such aforesaid conduct would and does kill people, including but not limited to Plaintiff, during the course of the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit.
  53. Plaintiffs further allege that the conduct of the defendants was undertaken with the result that the SUBJECT EXPEDITION'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 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 EXPEDITION.
  54. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff submits that an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 25, and each of them is proper and appropriate to punish said Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future.
  55. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Negligence [Product Liability] against Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY; CONTINENTAL TIRE OF NORTH AMERICA; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC.; CHINO HILLS FORD, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive)

  56. Plaintiffs incorporate, repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 25, above, and incorporate the same by reference as though set forth in detail herein.
  57. 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 and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
  58. 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 EXPEDITION and each of its components parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides 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 it was likely to injure the person who used said product, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
  59. 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 EXPEDITION 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 EXPEDITION 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 hereinabove. In addition, said SUBJECT EXPEDITION and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides during a reasonably foreseeable driving maneuver made with due care was unstable dangerous.
  60. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and unlawful conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, legally caused the plaintiffs' injuries, legally resulting in plaintiffs' damages as set forth hereinabove.
  61. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Negligence against Defendant BECERIL TIRE SHOP; 1 through 100, Inclusive)

  62. Plaintiffs incorporate, repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as though fully set forth herein, and incorporate the same by reference as though set forth in detail herein.
  63. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant, BECERIL TIRE SHOP and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, were under a duty to use due care in their service, repair, inspection and maintenance of the SUBJECT VEHICLE and its tires.
  64. Prior to the automobile crash which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, in or about August, 2006, Defendants, BECERIL TIRE SHOP and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, so negligently, carelessly, willfully, wantonly, recklessly, and tortiously serviced, repaired, inspected the tires so as to have caused and/or contributed to the loss of tread on the left front tire, causing the tire to come apart.
  65. Observation of the tire of which the tread separated, reveals a smooth, shiny, polished, residual skin near the belt head, indicating that the two belts had been in a state of separation for a significant length of time before the crash. Therefore, there would have been external indications of the process of tread separation at the time that defendants mounted, rotated, and/or inspected the tire. Examples include lack of patching at repair site and tread wear that would have indicated that the tire was going to fail.
  66. Had defendant, BECERIL TIRE SHOP exercised due care in its service, repair, inspection and maintenance of the tire, and adequately inspected the subject tire during repair and patching, it would have known and should have known that the left rear tire had lost its tread, and/or was losing its tread, and would come apart, causing the loss of control over the SUBJECT VEHICLE, causing and/or contributing to the crash that is the subject matter of this lawsuit, as a direct and legal result of which Plaintiffs suffered severe personal injuries and legally-resulting plaintiffs'damages therefrom as alleged herein.
  67. 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, Defendants legally caused the serious personal injuries to plaintiffs and in turn legally resulting in plaintiffs' damages as set forth herein.
  68. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION]

    NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against All Defendants by all Plaintiffs except MELISSA SANCHEZ)

  69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 25 inclusive.
  70. Plaintiffs suffered serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving the serious injuries and danger to the other occupants of the vehicle, who were all members of their family.
    • Plaintiff, DIANA OROZCO, observed serious personal injuries and danger to her mother, GRISELDA BERNARDINO, her sister, BIANCA OROZCO, her father, JESUS OROZCO and her cousins, AYARI MARTINEZ, and ALONSO MARTINEZ.
    • Plaintiff, BIANCA OROZCO, observed serious personal injuries and danger to her mother, GRISELDA BERNARDINO, her sister, DIANA OROZCO, her father, JESUS OROZCO and her cousins, AYARI MARTINEZ, and ALONSO MARTINEZ.
    • Plaintiff, GRISELDA BERNARDINO, observed serious personal injuries and danger to her husband, JESUS OROZCO; her daughters, DIANA OROZCO and BIANCA OROZCO, her niece, AYARI MARTINEZ; and her nephew, ALONSO MARTINEZ.
    • Plaintiff, JESUS OROZCO, observed serious personal injuries and danger to his wife, GRISELDA BERNARDINO; his daughters, DIANA OROZCO and BIANCA OROZCO, his niece, AYARI MARTINEZ; and his nephew, ALONSO MARTINEZ.
  71. As described above, defendants negligently caused the serious injuries to plaintiffs by reason of the defects inherent in the SUBJECT EXPEDITION, 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 EXPEDITION and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
  72. At all times mentioned, defendants and each of them and DOES 11 through 20 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that said SUBJECT EXPEDITION 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.
  73. 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 EXPEDITION 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 EXPEDITION 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 EXPEDITION 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.
  74. All of the plaintiffs were present in the vehicle while it was rolling and were aware that their family members were being seriously injured when they were partially or totally ejected from the vehicle, cut and lacerated by the broken glass, and their bodies smashed when the roof crushed inward. As a direct and legal result of the Defendants' negligence, carelessness, and unlawful conduct and the defects inherent in the vehicle, the plaintiffs 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.
  75. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

    BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES (Against All Defendants by all Plaintiffs)

  76. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 25 inclusive.
  77. Plaintiffs reallege as though fully set forth at length, and incorporate herein by reference, all of the allegations and statements contained in paragraph 1 through 25, inclusive.
  78. That the defendants Ford Motor Company and Continental Tire of North America and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, impliedly and expressly warranted to that the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each and every component part thereof, was fit for the purpose for which it was to be used and was free from design and manufacturing defects to consumers and users thereof.
  79. That the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and each and every component part thereof, was not free from such defects nor fit for the purpose for which it was to be used, and was in fact, defectively manufactured and designed and imminently dangerous to consumers, users and bystanders, and that said was capable of causing, and in fact did cause, injuries and/or death to the user and consumer thereof, while being used in manner reasonably foreseeable, thereby rendering same unsafe and dangerous for use by the consumer, user and/or bystander.
  80. On or about August 1, 2007, as a direct and proximate result of each breach of warranty by the defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, while plaintiffs traveling in the SUBJECT VEHICLE suffered severe injuries to their person, as a result of the failure of the SUBJECT TIRE when the tread separated and the SUBJECT VEHICLE rolled over.
  81. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the defendants, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and the defective condition of the SUBJECT VEHICLE and SUBJECT TIRE which resulted in the injury to the plaintiffs as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants and each of them, as follows:

  1. For special and economic damages including, medical expenses, and loss of past and future earnings and earning capacity, according to proof at trial;
  2. For general damages including damages for loss of consortium and emotional distress and suffering;
  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, by all plaintiffs, against Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY and DOES 1 to 25, ONLY.

DATED:

Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF HARRY SADEGHI & ASSOCIATES

By:__________________________________
BRIAN D CHASE, ESQ.
HARRY SADEGHI, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

DATED: Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF HARRY SADEGHI & ASSOCIATES

By:__________________________________
BRIAN D CHASE, ESQ.
HARRY SADEGHI, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Have a question that wasn't answered here?

CALL US!
(800) 561-4887

Was This Page Helpful? Yes | No

Client Reviews of Bisnar Chase

“These people were so unbelievably nice. When you go to a personal injury law firm, you dont expect to like the people that are representing you. They did a great job with my case and kept me informed throughout the whole process. Definite 5 stars.”

by Amanda P.

reviewed at Yelp

“I did a car accident case with these guys. They were quick, efficient and friendly. Ended up with a great settlement. Why did I get the royal treatment? No idea.”

by Jacob C.

reviewed at Yelp

“Anytime I had a question I understood the response and would be responded to in a timely fashion. I really enjoyed talking to Lorraine. She was so bubbly and made me feel appreciated as a client. All the ladies I spoke to were wonderful.”

by Jen

reviewed at Super Pages

See All Ratings And Awards

The BISNAR CHASE Difference

  • “I was in a serious auto accident when I was in law school. I had to hire a personal injury attorney and had a really bad experience.”

    John Bisnar

    on what made him want to become a personal injury attorney

  • “If you hire Bisnar | Chase and we don't recover money for you in your case, you owe us absolutely nothing.”

    Brian Chase

    on whether or not you would owe money if your case was lost

  • “Whatever the philosphy of the management is, is going to be carried through by the employees and it’s going to reflect on the experience the clients have.”

    John Bisnar

    on his philosophy on running a law firm

  • “The insurance companies are going to be investigating that accident the day it happens. You need to have a lawyer on your side the day it happens as well.”

    Brian Chase

    on when you should contact an attorney

  • “The first thing we want to do with our clients is to relieve the stress. Make them feel comfortable. Treat them as an honored guest.”

    John Bisnar

    on how he would define superior client representation

  • “It's hard to answer that question right up front without a thorough analysis. What I can guarantee you is, with the resources of Bisnar | Chase we will maximize the value of your case.”

    Brian Chase

    on what your case is worth

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

local: (949) 203-3814
Get Directions

California Personal Injury Blog