Mitch Connett v. The Pep Boys; Exide Corp.
Published: Dec. 6, 1997 | Result Date: Nov. 12, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: MC004522 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
William L. Feinstein
(medical)
Paul C. Stimson
(technical)
A. Jon Saxon
(technical)
Defendant
Raymond Musgrove
(technical)
Ted Vavoulis
(technical)
John D. Hofbauer
(medical)
Facts
On Aug. 9, 1992, plaintiff Mitch Connett, a 33-year-old auto mechanic, was working on a car on which he had just completed an engine rebuild. When plaintiff wiggled the positive battery cable, the battery allegedly exploded in his face. The plaintiff brought this product liability action against Pep Boys, as seller of the product, and Exide Corporation, the battery manufacturer, based on a manufacturing defect theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $150,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $25,000.
Specials in Evidence
$500 $160,000 $644,000 Unknown
Injuries
The plaintiff allegedly suffered a corneal scar, pinguecula and glare when driving or working on heavy automotive repair.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately four years and four months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held in August 1997 before Judge Amspoker of the Los Angeles Superior Court. It did not resolve the matter. Per defendant, the vehicle in which plaintiff was working came into his shop in June of 1992. It was not known whether or not the subject battery was in the vehicle when it was brought into plaintiff's shop. The battery was manufactured in 1989. The incident occurred in 1992. The plaintiff testified that after the explosion, he threw the battery out with other battery cores and retrieved it two weeks later. In other words, there was no history as to the use of the battery from its manufacturer to the time of the litigation. EXPERT TESTIMONY: The defense battery expert testified that it was not possible for the battery to explode the way plaintiff and plaintiff's expert explained. According to defendant, on cross-examination plaintiff's expert was not able to identify the component parts of the battery nor their significance.
Deliberation
three hours
Poll
10-2 (defect)
Length
five days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390