Misty Raley, individually and as parent and next friend of C.G., W.G. and C.A.G., minor children v. Hyundai Motor Company Ltd., Hyundai Motor America
Published: Apr. 3, 2010 | Result Date: Mar. 2, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 5:08-cv-00376-HE Verdict – Defense
Court
USDC Western
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Mark A. Cox
(Egolf Ferlic Martinez Harwood LLC)
Defendant
Thomas N. Vanderford Jr.
(Hyundai Motor America)
Experts
Plaintiff
Brad Mathison
(technical)
Sherry Latham
(technical)
Larry G. Cox
(technical)
Stephen A. Batzer Ph.D., P.E.
(technical)
Charles P. Dickerson
(technical)
Carley C. Ward
(technical)
Donald Friedman
(technical)
William H. Muzzy III
(technical)
Shawn Smith
(medical)
Defendant
Garry S. Bahling
(technical)
Richard L. Morrison
(technical)
Geoffrey J. Germane
(technical)
James H. Raddin Jr.
(technical)
Michael E. Klima
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiff alleged that the seat belt, the roof, and the side window glazing in 1999 Hyundai Sonata was defective and negligently designed, causing or contributing to her permanent injuries (quadriplegia) sustained during a rollover crash that occurred near the intersection of Interstate 44 and S.W. 59th Street in Oklahoma City, Okla. on Dec. 19, 2003.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that the roof and pillars that support the roof were not designed to withstand the force of accidents, particularly rollovers. The plaintiff also charged that the seat belt was defectively designed so as to allow the buckle to inadvertently or inertially unlatch, allowing the plaintiff's ejection from the vehicle.
The plaintiff further alleged that the side window glazing system was defectively designed in a manner that fails to retain occupants, allowing for plaintiff's ejection from the vehicle.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants denied that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous. They maintained that no defect existed and that the vehicle's design complied with all applicable safety standards. The defendants further contended that plaintiff was not wearing her seat belt and that the force of the accident caused her injuries.
Following four days of Daubert hearings before the trial, the defendants successfully precluded the testimony of plaintiffs' seat belt design expert about inadvertent unlatching and the testimony of plaintiffs' roof design expert about testing performed on the Jordan Rollover System (JRS) apparatus.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed more than $10 million for future medical bills and treatment and further alleged loss of enjoyment of life and past and future pain and suffering. Finally, the plaintiff sought damages for the negligent infliction of emotional distress upon her three minor children, who were in the rollover crash and witnessed her injuries.
Result
The jury found in favor of the defendant.
Deliberation
65 minutes
Length
13 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390