 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gass v. NSK LTD.11/18/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Ronald Allen Gass (Gass) and Kay Gass brought a product liability action against NSK Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (collectively Nissan) seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by a design defect in a car manufactured by Nissan. Judgment was entered after a jury verdict in favor of Gass. Nissan appeals the judgment, and Gass cross-appeals. Nissan contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the design of its car complied with federal safety standards and conformed to industry custom and practice. Gass contends that the trial court erred in denying his partial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict concerning comparative fault, and in finding that his offer of compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 was not made in good faith. We affirm in all respects.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Driver Ronald Gass lost control of his 1993 Infiniti J30 while driving on a slightly curved dry road with clear visibility. The car hit the shoulder of the highway, traveled up an embankment, and rolled over before coming to rest. Gass suffered a serious spinal cord injury when the roof collapsed during the rollover. He lost nearly all use of his hands, impairment in the movement of his arms, shoulders and legs, and impairment of certain bodily functions.
Gass sued Nissan for damages resulting from injuries he alleges were caused by the collapse of the car's roof. His wife sought damages for loss of consortium. Gass's theory of liability at trial was that the Infiniti J30 was defective in the design of both its roof and seatbelt system. Gass introduced evidence that his injuries were caused by the combination of inadequate roof strength and excessive vertical slack in his seatbelt. When the roof collapsed, Gass was left with only two inches of headroom and the seatbelt had approximately 5.25 inches of vertical slack, which meant that, during the rollover, he dropped 5.25 inches off his seat even though he was seatbelted. As a result, the roof of the car impacted his head and compressed his cervical spine.
Gass also introduced evidence that there were ways which were economically and technologically feasible to strengthen the roof and reduce vertical seatbelt slack without compromising vehicle performance or overall safety. This evidence showed that the roof could have been strengthened by injecting structural foam in the roof headers. It also showed that the seatbelt slack could have been reduced through hardware changes or activation of a tightening mechanism during rollovers.
Nissan introduced evidence that Gass's spinal injury was not caused by the collapsing roof or by excessive vertical slack in the seatbelts. Rather, Gass suffered a so-called "diving" injury, which means that his head hit the roof of the car before the roof collapsed and injury resulted when pressure from Gass's torso overloaded and compressed his neck. In other words, Gass claimed that the roof hit his neck when it collapsed, while Nissan claimed Gass's body crushed his neck before the roof collapsed.In support of its position, Nissan offered evidence that the roof design was not defective because the Infiniti J30 roof passed a widely-used test to establish its strength and crashworthiness, and a stronger roof would not have reduced the risk of neck injury in a rollover accident. Although the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|