 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Monte v. Toyota Motor Corp.9/28/2001
UNPUBLISHED
In this products liability action, defendants Toyota Motor Corporation (hereinafter "TMC") and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter "TMS") appeal as of right from the trial court's decision denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse.
I. Background and Procedural History
Plaintiffs Michael and Joanne Monte leased a 1994 Toyota Camry, manufactured by defendant TMC and sold by defendant TMS. When plaintiffs leased the 1994 Camry, airbags were not a required feature. According to plaintiffs, the vehicle's airbag system and the protection that it offered in addition to the seatbelt was their primary motivation for leasing the Camry. Within twenty-four hours of leasing the vehicle, plaintiffs read about the airbag system in the Owner's Manuel and Owner's Guide, both of which were provided to plaintiffs along with the automobile.
The Owner's Guide states:
In addition to seat belts, many Toyota vehicles are equipped with both driver's and passenger's side supplemental restraint systems (SRS airbags). Airbags have been designed to supplement the three-point seat belt by providing additional protection by restraining the forward motion in the event of a more serious frontal accident. [Emphasis added.]
Further, the Owner's Manual states:
The SRS (Supplemental Restraint System) airbags are designed to be activated in response to a severe frontal impact . . . to provide the driver and front passenger with further protection in addition to the primary protection provided by the seat belts. [Emphasis added.]
The SRS airbag system is not designed to protect the driver and front passenger from an impact from the side or rear, a vehicle overturn or frontal collision at low speeds. [Emphasis added.]
On March 17, 1995, plaintiff Michael Monte was involved in an automobile accident. Although plaintiff was wearing his seat belt, the airbag did not deploy upon impact. Plaintiff claims that the impact was indeed "severe" and that as a result of the airbag's failure to deploy he sustained serious injuries to his cervical spine and the lower lumbar region of his back.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence and Mrs. Monte's derivative claim for loss of consortium. Before trial however, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims for negligence and breach of implied warranty, electing only to proceed on the claim for breach of express warranty.
At trial, defendants' primary position was that the airbag in plaintiff's vehicle was not defective in either manufacture or design. Defendants maintained that the airbag did not deploy in response to plaintiff's collision because the airbag was neither designed nor manufactured to deploy in low speed collisions. In fact, before all of the repairs on plaintiff's vehicle were complete, defendant Mel Farr Imports, Inc. conducted a test on the airbag system in plaintiff's vehicle, which revealed that the airbag system was fully operational; i.e. free of any "defect." From the time that plaintiffs leased the vehicle up until and since the accident, plaintiffs never had the airbag replaced or otherwise repaired.
After the trial, the jury returned its verdict in plaintiffs' favor in the amount of $225,778.39. After the judgment was entered, defendants filed, among other things, its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The trial court denied the relief requested by defendants. Defendants appeal as of right arguing that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of products liability in general and breac
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|