 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nissan Motor Company v. Fry5/25/2000
iving the car.
B. Albertano Aguilera
Class representative Albertano Aguilera never received an owner's manual, and he is subject to the false security syndrome.
C. Lois Burke
Class representative Lois Burke received an owner's manual, but she did not begin wearing the lap belt until a relative told her it was important to do so. She is concerned for the safety of passengers who ride with her.
We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the testimony of these three individuals precludes the typicality of the class representatives. The nexus of their claim is that the Nissan safety belt system at issue here is defective and unreasonably dangerous, not only to the owners of the vehicles, but to their passengers as well. This evidence may bolster the class claims that the warnings given by Nissan concerning the seat belt system were inadequate to reach all users of Nissan vehicles. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding typicality. We overrule issue 3(c).
In issue 3(d), Nissan contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the claims of the purported class members were typical of class claims because the representatives did not receive the same warnings and instructions (in owner's manuals and on sun visors) as the entire class.
We have already held in issue 1(c) that there are "at least some facts" in evidence regarding the similarity of the warnings and instructions accompanying the seat belt system. See Weatherly, 905 S.W.2d at 647; Brister, 772 S.W.2d at 773. Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding typicality. We overrule issue 3(d).
Because we have concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding typicality, we overrule Nissan's third issue.
H. Superiority of Class Action
In its fourth issue, Nissan contends the trial court erred in finding that a class action suit is the superior form of adjudication for appellees' claims when:
(a) the court cannot require the warnings and instructions alleged to be necessary, and the class has not requested this relief;
(b) a federal agency is empowered to order a recall and cost-free remediation of the alleged problem on a nationwide basis;
(c) the federal agency remedy would eliminate any economic damages; and
(d) class representatives testified that an affirmative remedy approach would be superior to the class action approach.
Class certification is appropriate where repeated litigation of the common issues in individual actions is grossly inefficient, exorbitantly costly, and a waste of judicial resources. Rainbow Group, 990 S.W.2d at 360; FirstCollect, 976 S.W.2d at 303. Class action is superior to other methods of adjudication where any difficulties which might arise in the management of the class are outweighed by benefits of classwide resolution of common issues. Central Power & Light, 962 S.W.2d at 611; Weatherly, 905 S.W.2d at 655; National Gypsum Co. v. Kirbyville Indep. Sch. Dist., 770 S.W.2d 621, 626 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1989, writ dism'd. w.o.j.). That individual suits may be conducted before different juries and judges and perhaps in different counties, and that absolute uniformity of results is not likely even with the same testimony, facts and issues of law, is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of class action superiority. FirstCollect, 976 at 303; Adams, 791 S.W.2d at 287. One factor in determining the superiority of the class action method is that the trial court has invested time and effort in familiarizing itself with the issues in dispute during seve
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|