Mary Bresnahan v. Chrysler Corporation and Barrish Chrysler
Published: Oct. 26, 1996 | Result Date: Sep. 20, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC019742 – $49,650
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Robert W. Mansell
(Mansell & Mansell APC)
Defendant
Sidney Kanazawa
(ARC (Alternative Resolution Centers))
Experts
Plaintiff
Leonard LeCaze
(technical)
Defendant
Dennis Guenther
(technical)
Randy L. Edwards
(technical)
Janice Salliotte
(technical)
Facts
On Aug. 22, 1990, plaintiff Mary Bresnahan, a 55-year-old registered nurse, drove a loaner car (from Barish Chrysler) into the rear of another vehicle and deployed the air bag in the loaner car. She was sitting close to the steering wheel in the same relative position as on June 3, 1990. On that date, the plaintiff was driving her 1988 Chrysler LeBaron convertible in Marina Del Rey when she rear-ended another vehicle. The plaintiff admitted that the accident was her fault. Upon impact, the airbag deployed, throwing her left arm into the metal frame around the windshield and causing a fracture of her elbow. The speed at impact was between 16 to 24 mph with a barrier-equivalent velocity (BEV) of 8 to 12 mph. The airbag was set to deploy in accidents ranging from 8 to 14 mph BEV impacts regardless of whether the occupant is belted or un-belted. The plaintiff was wearing her seatbelt at the time of impact. It was undisputed that the deployment of the airbag was the cause of injury. That model year, 1988 was the first year that Chrysler put airbags in its cars. The plaintiff testified that she always sat very close to the steering wheel while driving. The plaintiff claimed that studies have shown that sitting too close to the steering wheel while driving can increase the incident of airbag injuries to the head and chest in some people. Per the defendant, the only evidence introduced at trial on this issue related to people slumped over the steering wheel or actually contacting the plastic air bag covering before deployment. For two years after the accident, the plaintiff continued to drive the same air bag equipped 1988 Chrysler Le Baron. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, Chrysler Corporation and Barrish Chrysler based on failure to warn and defective design theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $85,000 which was increased to $250,000 before trial (per the defendants). The defendants made no settlement offers.
Specials in Evidence
$24,161.04 one year total disability and ongoing disability to the present. Loss of earnings not claimed (allegedly to preclude introduction of evidence of tax evasion and subsequent accidents and injuries) $24,161.04
Injuries
The plaintiff alleged she sustained a fractured olecranan (elbow) requiring four surgeries.
Result
***CONTINUATION OF OTHER INFORMATION: Due to a hip operation, the case proceeded to trial before the Hon. Judge Kenneth Gale under the risk/benefit test. At the close of the trial, the plaintiff brought another motion allow the jury to be instructed under the consumer expectations test and the risk/benefit test. By this time, Chrysler had presented most of its case under the risk/benefit test and had not identified the witnesses it called for the prior evidentiary motion in limine. Nevertheless, Judge Gale reversed Judge Romero's earlier ruling and instructed the jury on both tests. After rendering their general verdict, the jurors expressed frustration with the consumer expectations test. Several believed it to be too harsh. Per the defendants, the juror indicated that they went into the jury room favoring Chrysler and believing the benefits of the air bag outweighed its risks. The jurors allegedly felt the consumer expectation asked them to speculate about the speed at which consumers might think the air bag will deploy. They decided the speed would be in the range of 30-50 mph. Since the closing speed of the accident was in the jurors felt compelled to follow the jury and give an award to the plaintiff. Per the defendants, the jurors were unimpressed with the plaintiff's evidence of a dual threshold system used by Mercedes-Benz. The evidence indicated that the Mercedes-Benz/Bosch system utilized a single sensor microprocessor system that could not be used on American cars in the late 1980s and early 1990s because the single sensor could not detect the off-set crashes soon enough to be deffective. The air bag must deploy in .02 seconds of an initial impact to be in place to save lives. In its post-trial motions and appeal, Chrysler will highlight how the consumer expectations test in counter-productive to safety. Chrysler will urge the California courts to use this case to highlight the problems with the consumer expectations test and continue to trend toward its elimination.
Other Information
The verdict/settlement/award was reached approximately five years and eight months after the case was filed. An arbitration was held on April 27, 1992 before Anthony Bradisse resulting in a defense award. The plaintiff requested a trial de novo. This case was originally tried before Judge Alexander Williams III in 1992. The trial judge there granted defendant's motion for non-suit after the plaintiff's opening statement, claiming that this type of case was inappropriate for the "consumer expectations" test (the plaintiff's only theory at the original trial). The court of appeals reversed and remanded holding that the consumer expectations test was proper in Bresnahan v. Chrysler Corp. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1559. Chrysler's in house counsel, which handles airbag cases nationwide, claimed before the trial that they have never settled an airbag injury case and claimed that their record was 110 wins and no losses. Chrysler's in house counsel also stated that this was the first case to his knowledge claiming that the Dual Threshold Sensor should have been employed. Evidence which was presented by Chrysler showed that 43% of airbag deployments cause injuries. Of those, 4% of the injuries are at least as severe as the plaintiff suffered here. Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) attribute 19 adult deaths and 23 infant deaths to airbag deployments. Further, there are numerous cases where the occupant received injuries such as blindness (from detached retinas and items being propelled into eyes), deafness (from eardrums which burst), fractured bones in the hands, wrist, elbow and arms, chest and facial injuries, and a variety of other injuries caused by airbag deployments. Evidence demonstrated that the persons most susceptible were the very young and very old, as well as those who may sit very close to the steering wheel when they drive. While there was evidence which showed that airbags have saved many lives in major collisions, the evidence also showed that often in smaller accidents, airbags cause more injury that they may prevent. Given that 80% of all accidents occur at speed under 20 mph, airbags are causing thousands of unnecessary injuries. Several studies which were relied upon by the experts who testified in the case found that the Dual Threshold Sensors (DTS), currently used by Mercedes Benz and BMW since 1988, are preferable over a single deployment threshold sensor. The "DTS" allows the airbag to deploy at a low level if the occupant is un-belted, but prevents deployment until a higher level if the occupant is wearing their seat belt. This is because the risk of serious injury or death is at a much higher level for occupants who wear their seat belt. The logic is simple: Since an airbag deployment in and of itself can cause serious injury or death, airbags should only deploy when absolutely necessary. Plaintiff and her expert, Leonard Lacaze, also admitted they both now own and drive American cars with single threshold air bag systems similar to the system used in the 1988 Chrysler LeBaron. Chrysler is preparing post-trial motions and an appeal. This case was originally non-suited due to the original trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to proceed solely under the consumer expectations test for design defects and the plaintiff's refusal to proceed in that manner. The non-suit was appealed and reversed in the reported decision, Bresnahan v. Chrysler Corp., 32 Cal App. 4th 1559, 38 Cal. Rptr. 41 (1995). Chrysler then brought an evidentiary motion in limine to address the concerns of the applellate court "on the record presented." After a full evidentiary hearing, trial court Judge Enrique Romero ruled that the design of the air bag was not appropriate for evaluation under the consumer expectations test since the rapidly inflating bag congruently provided both the life saving benefits and the risk of limb injuries. ***
Deliberation
1+ days
Poll
11-1
Length
5 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390