– A five-year lawsuit over GM’s seat belts is over after a Las Vegas jury returned a verdict in General Motors’ favor.
GM agreed to pay $73 million if it lost the lawsuit filed by Chevy truck occupant Allie Mead.
According to the lawsuit, the crash occurred in August 2018 at approximately 1:50 a.m. while Allie Mead was sitting in the rear center truck seat and wearing a two-point lap belt.
The vehicle, described as a 1998 Chevrolet truck, struck a tree and a boulder, seriously injuring Mead.
The plaintiff claims her injuries were caused by the lap belt, which was allegedly of a “negligent and inappropriate design.” The lawsuit claims her injuries would not have occurred if the rear seat belt had been a three-point design.
A 2-point belt is a lap belt, while a 3-point belt also includes a belt that goes over the chest and shoulder.
In the lawsuit, Mead claims the lap belt was unreasonably dangerous and that General Motors should have warned her about it.
Although Judge Tara Clark Newberry could have dismissed the case long ago, she allowed the case to go to trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas.
GM’s argument was simple from the start. The 1998 model year truck met or exceeded all federal safety standards when it was manufactured and sold, and regulations did not require a three-point seat belt in the rear center seat.
However, every automaker is nervous about going to trial on these matters because jurors have a habit of finding a vehicle defective and dangerous even when federal safety regulators say it isn’t. Essentially, a judge and jury can take on the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its trained and qualified investigators.
Two recent examples involve the roofs of Ford Super Duty trucks collapsing in violent crashes. Although the trucks and their roofs met all federal safety standards, one jury originally returned a $1.7 billion verdict against Ford, while another jury returned a $2.5 billion verdict against the automaker.
A car crash, especially a violent one, can cause any part of a vehicle to injure an occupant, and GM argued that a seat belt is no different. But the fact that a seat belt can cause injury in an accident does not mean that the seat belt is defective or dangerous.
GM argued that a seat belt is designed to redistribute energy and prevent an occupant from being thrown forward through the vehicle or ejected from a vehicle. GM says the lap belt met or exceeded all federal safety standards, and just because an occupant could be injured in a crash doesn’t mean the design was “negligent.”
According to GM, the center rear lap belt did its job by helping to protect the occupant and reducing the risk of injury or death. And the jury agreed.
According to the jury, GM did not have to warn Mead about the 2-point lap belt, because the seat belt was not defective or unreasonably dangerous.
#wins #seat #belt #trial #Allie #Mead #General #Motors