Facts

This was a strict liability case with alleged defects in a Takata Seat Belt Inc.'s retractor seat belt apparatus installed in a new application in the middle seat second row, which previously only had a lap belt. The seat belt retractor was mounted inside the seat back. This was a 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe. Elizabeth and George Guerrero purchased the Tahoe in May 2005 at Delano Family Motors. The Guerreros purchased an optional third row for extra passenger seating. When they took it to be serviced in Bakersfield, at Three Way Chevrolet in August a "field action" was performed where a loop in that same seat belt system on the seat was sewn shut after the belt was taken out of the loop because there was potential for abdominal injuries to children.

On or about Feb. 1, 2006, the subject seat belt began to have difficulties in extraction and retraction. On or about Feb. 15, 2006, the seat belt became stuck. The Guerreros claim that on Feb. 20, 2006 they took the Tahoe to Three Way Chevrolet to have the seat belt fixed. However, they claim they were told that no appointments were available for one month. They left and did not make any further attempt to get the seat belt fixed before the accident happened six weeks later.

Plaintiffs claimed Monique continued to use the booster seat with the stuck seat belt until April 2, 2006 when Monique vomited on the booster. The booster seat was then taken out of use. Monique continued to use the seat with the stuck seat belt which now had considerably more slack than it did when used with the booster seat.

On April 6, 2006 at 7:45 a.m., Elizabeth Guerrero, 25, was driving on a curved mountain road (Banducci Road) in Tehachapi when she hit black ice, lost control and struck a tree head on. The vehicle's crash data recorder indicated her speed was 54 mph at about the time she hit the ice and about 34 mph at impact with the tree. Elizabeth Guerrero was using her lap/shoulder belt and her air bag deployed. She was not seriously injured. Her son Israel, 7, was in the 2d row right seat using a lap/shoulder belt and he was not injured. Her daughter Jasmine, 1, was in a child safety seat and she was not injured. However, Monique sustained T3 fractures and spinal cord contusion resulting in complete paraplegia at the T3 level and below.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were liable for a manufacturing defect, design defect, and negligence in manufacturer and design. Plaintiffs also sought punitive damages based upon malice. Plaintiffs claimed the seat belt stuck because a twist on the retractor caused the webbing to get caught in the retractor locking teeth. Plaintiffs contended that if the retractor had been designed with plastic flanges between the webbing and the locking teeth the seat belt would not have become stuck. It was also claimed that either the twist was put on the retractor during the time of manufacture or that the web guide at the top of the seat back failed to keep the twist from getting past it and onto the retractor. During trial, the retractor was opened in the presence of all parties' seat belt experts and a twist was found deep on the retractor. There was also some fraying at the edges of the webbing which plaintiffs contended was evidence that the webbing had been caught in the locking teeth.

The plaintiffs contended that if Monique Guerrero had been in a fully functioning three-point belt system that she would have been uninjured and supported this by MADYMO testing performed by Biodynamics Engineering Inc. That testing showed that the HIC values were low in a properly functioning seat belt system with a 6-year-old anthropomorphic dummy and that spinal cord injury would not occur. They also showed that with the subject booster in place with the struck belt in place that she would not have been injured. They showed that the injury to the T3 vertebrae was consistent with a hyperflexion injury into the torso belt.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
GM contended the crash was caused by Elizabeth Guerrero's excessive speed under the conditions and that Monique's spinal cord injury was caused by the absence of a belt positioning booster seat. Defendants collectively contended the seat belt was not defective in design or manufacture. They contended that the twist did not get onto the retractor during manufacture of the seat belt. Takata's seat belt expert Robert Gratzinger went to the Acuna, Mexico plant where the seat belt was manufactured and testified that the quality control procedures in effect would not allow a seat belt with a twist to be introduced during manufacture. Defendants contended a twist could not get past the web guide during normal seat belt use. It must have gotten onto the retractor shortly before the seat belt became stuck when someone, most likely George Guerrero, forced it through the web guide at the top of the seat back. Takata had no knowledge of any prior incidents or claims of a twist causing a retractor to stick so that webbing could not be retracted or extracted. Further, Takata never had knowledge of any incidents or claims where webbing got caught in the retractor locking teeth in any of the millions of vehicles using this retractor.

Defendants contended that the Guerreros were responsible for Monique's injuries because they failed to get the seat belt fixed, failed to have Monique in a booster seat which was required under California law (i.e. under 6 years of age and under 60 pounds) and instead of placing Monique in one of the 3rd row seats with working lap/shoulder belts they continued to let her use the stuck seat belt which had a large amount of excess slack. Defendant Takata also disputed the vomiting incident and claimed that a statement by George Guerrero to his experts indicated Monique was not able to use the stuck seat belt with her booster seat because there was not enough webbing to latch the seat belt around the booster.

Defendants also contended that Monique had the shoulder part of the seat belt behind her back. A load mark found on the seat belt during the April 11, 2006 in trial inspection was consistent with the shoulder belt being behind Monique's back.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs demanded $10 million. The defendants offered $1.5 million.

Specials in Evidence

$396,116 (for Monique Guerrero);

Damages

The present value of the life care plan is approximately $21 million and the present value of the future loss of earning capacity is approximately $626,000. $5 million general damages claimed for Monique Guerrero from date of accident to present and $20 million to $40 million in the future. $1 million to $2 million general damages claimed for Elizabeth Guerrero for emotional distress. $250,000 general damages claimed for Israel Guerrero.

Injuries

Monique Guerrero has T3 paraplegia, resulting in very poor trunk balance, neurogenic bowel and bladder, episodes of autonomic dysreflexia, and chronic severe neuropathic pain, that it is obvious that she will be unemployable in any competitive job in her adult years. There is also a life care plan that includes 24-hour LVN care to follow through with medical and therapy recommendations; perform intermittent catheterization; perform bowel program; measure blood pressure to monitor autonomic dysreflexia, assist with wheelchair transfers; assist with self-care tasks; and provide transportation. She suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. These will be life-long problems.

Result

Unanimous jury verdict for the defense.

Other Information

A mediation was held before Jeff Kichaven, Esq., of JAMS on Oct. 23, 2007. A settlement conference was held before Hon. Sandra Snyder on Feb. 13, 2008.

Deliberation

50 minutes

Poll

9-0 (defense)

Length

five weeks