This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Product Liability

Scott Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

Published: Nov. 25, 2006 | Result Date: Sep. 22, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: YC048335 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Torrance


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Larry E. Coben

Michael S. Fields


Defendant

Mark V. Berry
(Bowman and Brooke LLP)

H. Franklin Hostetler III


Experts

Plaintiff

Mickey G. Gilbert
(technical)

Mariusz Ziejewski
(technical)

Mehdi Ahmadian
(technical)

Robert Caldwell
(technical)

John Melvin
(medical)

Gerry Aster
(medical)

Anthony Gamboa
(technical)

Defendant

Herbert W. Moskowitz
(technical)

Robert Rucoba
(technical)

Gerald Udinsky
(technical)

Lee Carr
(technical)

Rose Ray
(technical)

Dennis C. Schneider
(technical)

Thomas L. Hedge Jr., M.D.
(medical)

Michael James
(technical)

Facts

In June 2003, plaintiff Scott Gordon, a law student, was traveling with his friend to San Diego in a 1990 Nissan Pathfinder 4X4. As he entered an on-ramp near Las Vegas, plaintiff's car moved onto the left shoulder. When he tried to maneuver the car back onto the road, it spun out of control and rolled on the road. As a result of the accident, plaintiff became a paraplegic. He sued defendant Nissan Motor Co. for products liability, alleging that the rollover was caused by a design defect.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The 1990 Pathfinder was prone to rollovers because it had a low static stability factor, meaning that it had a narrow track width compared to the center gravity height. Plaintiff's expert opined that the Pathfinder's static stability factor did not meet his minimum acceptable standard. Plaintiff sustained injuries rendering him a paraplegic because the roof pushed him into his seat. Therefore, a seatbelt would not have protected him from his injuries.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
According to the accident reconstruction expert, the car rolled two times, which was indicative of a trip mechanism. Further, according to the accident reconstruction expert, the rollover caused the steel wheel of the car to dig into the pavement. The car was well designed and had the proper margin of safety. Had plaintiff been wearing his seatbelt, he would not have sustained injuries rendering him a paraplegic. This is because seatbelts decrease the risk of such injuries during rollover accidents. Moreover, real world crash statistics showed that the car's safety record exceeds other vehicles that are considered safe.

Specials in Evidence

Plaintiff claimed that he would have had a successful legal career and was therefore entitled to $3.5 million in future lost earnings. Plaintiff sought $2.2 million.

Injuries

Paraplegia at T12 level. Neurogenic bowel and bladder. Loss of sexual function.

Result

The jury determined that the Pathfinder did not have any design defects. Therefore, defendant was not liable for plaintiff's injuries.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

10-2

Length

three weeks


#114544

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390