 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Santosa v. Chrysler Corp.9/9/2002
Indrasanti Santosa was seriously injured when a Jeep Grand Cherokee driven by Ida Gerstel suddenly accelerated and struck her. Following a trial in which Chrysler and Gerstel were both defendants, the jury found that a defect in the Jeep was the sole cause of the accident, and excused Gerstel from liability. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment on the verdict.
Testimony at trial established the following facts. In June 1996, Ida Gerstel drove her 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee to her bank's drive-through window and shifted into park. The vehicle has an automatic transmission.
After banking, Gerstel shifted into drive and prepared to leave. The Jeep suddenly accelerated out of control. The Jeep sped across the street toward a gas station. Indrasanti Santosa was leaving the gas station's office when Gretel's Jeep struck her, causing severe injuries. Santosa filed suit against Gerstel and DaimlerChrysler, the Jeep's manufacturer.
Santosa claimed that Gerstel was negligent in failing to properly control her vehicle. Santosa alleged strict products liability against Chrysler. Santosa also alleged Chrysler's negligence for failure to warn of the danger of sudden acceleration incidents and failure to incorporate design safeguards in the Jeep to prevent such incidents.
Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that Santosa's damages were $5.1 million and that the liability of Gerstel and Chrysler would be the only issue at trial. The parties further stipulated that either Gerstel or Chrysler, or both, were liable for Santosa's injuries and damages.
At trial, Santosa presented expert testimony that the Jeep was defective because it lacked a shift lock mechanism that requires the driver to apply the brake in order to shift the car from park into drive; and that a design defect in the Jeep placed the accelerator in a location where the driver was likely to press it when attempting to brake. Santosa's theory was that Gerstel had misapplied the accelerator, thinking it was the brake, but that the error was also attributable to Chrysler because Chrysler should have foreseen that the layout of the pedals would confuse drivers.
Gerstel, on the other hand, claimed that the accident was caused by a defect in the Jeep's wiring. She theorized that a short circuit caused the Jeep's cruise control to activate, opening the throttle and producing sudden and unexpected acceleration. Chrysler countered by arguing that the numerous documented incidents of sudden acceleration in Jeep vehicles were due to driver error, not any defect. Chrysler attributed the incident to Gerstel's negligence in applying the accelerator instead of the brake.
The jury returned a special verdict in favor of Santosa. The jury found that Chrysler supplied a vehicle that was not reasonably safe in design, and was negligent in not retrofitting it or warning about it. The jury found that the unsafe condition of the vehicle, or Chrysler's negligence, or both, proximately caused Santosa's injuries. The jury then determined that Gerstel was not negligent. Consequently, the jury found Chrysler 100 percent liable, making Chrysler 100 percent responsible for the stipulated damages.
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Chrysler assigns error to the court's denial of its motion in limine to exclude four experts presented by the other two parties. Chrysler contends their testimony was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 702 and Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). We review a determination of the admissibility of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 142 Wn.2d 654, 683, 15 P.3d 115 (2000).
Wil
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|