Wayland Tom v. General Motors Corporation; Comdyne I., Inc., Johnson Industries; Production Automotive Systems, and PAS
Published: May 10, 1997 | Result Date: Feb. 20, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 966506 – $400,000
Judge
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert N. Anderson
(technical)
Clyde Ikeda
(medical)
Carol R. Hyland M.A.
(technical)
Margo Rich Ogus Ph.D.
(technical)
Robert J. Riopelle
(medical)
Defendant
Thomas Boate
(technical)
Robert T. Levine
(medical)
Gordon E. Lakso
(technical)
Facts
On Jan. 18, 1994, plaintiff Wayland Tom, a 37-year-old Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) garageman, was seriously injured when the compressed natural gas tank mounted on the underbody of a GMC Sierra +-ton pick-up truck exploded during a normal refueling. The truck was designed to run only on compressed natural gas. The truck had 8,600 miles on it and was 1+ years old. Defendant Production Automotive Systems and PAS, designed, manufactured, and sold 2,600 pick-up trucks specially designed to run on compressed natural gas. Each pick-up truck had three compressed natural gas fuel tanks mounted underneath the pick-up bed. The trucks were sold primarily to utility companies. There was no coating on the outside of the tanks to protect them against any corrosion by environmental agents such as road salts or chemicals. Two weeks after the explosion that injured the plaintiff, a fuel tank on another GMC truck exploded during refueling in Minneapolis. Three weeks later, PG&E discovered a large crack on another GMC fuel tank, which the plaintiff claimed was ready to explode. An investigation conducted by various laboratories determined that the explosion which injured the plaintiff likely came about as a result of battery acid which dripped onto the tank from the bed of the pick-up truck and was trapped against the bottom of the tank by a stone shield. The battery acid had come from automotive batteries which were carried in the back of the truck from time to time. The truck was used as a "garage shop" truck. The Minneapolis explosion was also caused by an acidic solution, but the exact source of the solution was unknown. At the end of March 1994, General Motors recalled all of the pick-up trucks, declaring that there was a defect affecting vehicle safety, specifically, that the tanks would corrode and explode. The plaintiff claimed internal memoranda of the defendants indicated that they determined that there was a defect in the product and that the use of the tanks for this particular application was inappropriate. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on product liability, strict liability and negligence theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a final settlement demand for $400,000 (per the plaintiff) or $550,000 (per the defendants). The defendants made a joint offer of $60,000.
Damages
The plaintiff's attorney asked the jury to award $587,000. Defense attorneys asked the jury to award nothing.
Injuries
The plaintiff alleged that he suffered severe lacerations and loss of muscle in his left lower calf and ankle, and post traumatic stress disorder that prevented him from returning to work in a garage. The plaintiff claimed he had to be retrained as a clerk, which paid substantially less.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held on Jan. 5, 1997 before Judge William Cahill of San Francisco Superior Court. It did not resolve the matter. Defendant General Motors attempted to exclude any reference to the recall or the fact that PG&E had all of the trucks repurchased by General Motors for 100 cents on the dollar, including the truck which exploded. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence of the recall, but required that the plaintiff have independent proof of the existence of the defect. The court excluded evidence of the cost of the recall. Prior to trial, PAS settled its cross-complaint with the now-defunct tank manufacturer for $90,000. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Dr. Robert Anderson, a mettalurgist/accident reconstructionist, testified that there were various areas where the product was defective, including the use of the particular type of fiberglass (E-glass), the design and placement of the stone shields causing fluids to be trapped against the bottom of the tank, the location of the tanks, the failure to coat the outside of the tanks, and other such problems. The defense medical expert testified that the plaintiff's claims of inability to work in a garage were overstated and motivated by secondary gain. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: In post trial proceedings, the court credited $34,197.90 in workers' compensation payments made by the plaintiff's employer, reducing the final judgment to $320,324.11.
Deliberation
5 days
Poll
varied
Length
5 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390