 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Frank v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.3/28/2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
(*1)
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on of about May 30, 2000, which granted the motions of defendants Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Saturn Corporation to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to (*2)state a cause of action.
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the Supreme Court properly dismissed, for failure to state a cause of action, plaintiffs' proposed class action, which is based upon a purported defect in the front seat backrests of certain vehicles.
Plaintiffs commenced this proposed class action in June 1999 on behalf of themselves and all New York residents who own a "Class Vehicle," which includes various specified automobiles manufactured by defendants Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), General Motors Corporation ("General Motors"), and Saturn Corporation ("Saturn"), between 1993 and 1998. The class, as defined by (*3)plaintiffs, is estimated at 1,000,000 people and specifically excludes those individuals who allegedly suffered personal injuries as a result of the claimed "defect." The defect is defined by plaintiffs as a design utilizing a "single recliner mechanism" ("SRM"), which is a manually adjustable lever that fixes the angle of the seat backrest, and which is located only on the outboard side of the front seats.
Plaintiffs aver that the backrest, as designed, is unreasonably dangerous because "it is unstable and susceptible to rearward collapse in the event of a rear-end collision," in that if a Class Vehicle is struck from the rear by another vehicle "the force of the occupant's body against the backrest of the seat can result in the rearward collapse of the backrest," which in turn "can result . . . in neck and back injuries, paraplegia, quadriplegia, and even death." Plaintiffs further maintain that the seat defect was aggravated by certain additional design flaws, and that defendants knew or should have known of the hazardous condition, yet "made a conscious and deliberate decision" against implementing an improved design, which would have included an additional recliner mechanism on the inboard side of the seats.
Plaintiffs continue that defendants "knowingly and intentionally concealed from the public the foreseeable risk of harm from seat collapses" and that as a result, plaintiffs "suffered economic loss" in that the Class Vehicles and seats did not meet reasonable consumer expectations and posed an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death in the event of a rear-end collision. Plaintiffs maintain that class members were therefore compelled to "incur the expense of alternate transportation, or the expense of correcting the Defect."
Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages "measured by the cost of correcting the Defect, not to exceed $5,000 for each Class Vehicle," and interposed seven causes of action sounding in, (*4)respectively: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability; (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (4) negligent concealment and misrepresentation; (5) fraud; (6) unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of General Business Law ("GBL") ยงยง 349 and 350; and (7) civil conspiracy.
Ford, General Motors and Saturn subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and failure to state the fraud claims with sufficient particularity. The motion court, in an order entered on or about May 30, 2000, granted the motions and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs appeal and we now affirm.
It is well established that in d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|