 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Everett v. TK-Taito11/3/2005
I. Introduction
The sole issue we address in this appeal is whether Appellants Pete and Marcella Everett alleged an injury sufficient to establish their standing to assert certain causes of action on their own behalf and on behalf of " ll persons who own a vehicle equipped with TK-52 Buckles . . . that is registered in Texas, except those persons who have made claims against any defendant for personal injury damages allegedly arising out of seatbelt malfunction" or whether, as asserted by the defendant Appellees, the Everetts lack standing individually and as class representatives because they have suffered no injury that is redressable through their pleaded claims. The trial court granted Appellees' motions to dismiss the statewide class action lawsuit after determining that the Everetts lacked standing because they had not alleged an injury in fact. Because no allegations exist that the TK-52 seat belt buckles in Marcella's 1991 Isuzu Rodeo or in Pete's 1994 Nissan pickup have malfunctioned, because Pete does not seek to recover personal injury damages that he allegedly suffered from a TK-52 seat belt, and because neither Marcella nor Pete has alleged an economic injury that is redressable through their pleaded claims, we hold that the trial court did not err by dismissing the Everetts' claims for lack of standing. Consequently, we will affirm the trial court's judgment.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
The Everetts sued the defendants based on the production and sale of defective TK-52 buckles, ultimately alleging causes of action for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), constructive trust, money had and received, and exemplary damages. The Everetts pleaded that their vehicles, a 1994 Nissan pickup owned by Pete and a 1991 Isuzu Rodeo owned by Marcella, came factory-equipped with TK-52 buckles.
Although Pete alleges that he was physically injured by a defective Takata seat belt buckle, he specifically does not seek damages in this suit for those physical injuries. According to the pleadings, Marcella's seat belt buckles have not failed or caused her physical injury.
The Everetts alleged that Takata supplies the TK-52 buckles to its manufacturer customers and that Takata knew as early as the pre-production phase of the TK-52 buckles that the buckles--by virtue of a defective design--were susceptible to partial engagement, leaving the seat belt user essentially unrestrained. The Everetts pleaded that after a Honda Accord crash test documented the TK-52's partial engagement problem, Takata admitted a design defect existed and represented that it had developed a corrective countermeasure that would be incorporated into future TK-52 buckles. Several recalls issued concerning the defective buckles, but the Everetts maintain that not all of the defective buckles were recalled and that a substantial number of the buckles with identical defective internal design remain in use today, presenting an unreasonable risk of harm to users by virtue of the buckles' propensity to partially engage. The Everetts, on their own behalf and as class representatives, alleged economic injury damages, arguing that purchasers of vehicles fitted with the TK-52 buckles did not receive the benefit of the bargain that they made in the purchase of their vehicles and will suffer $500 per vehicle cost-of-replacement damages.
The defendants filed answers and numerous motions, including motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Following a nonevidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the Everetts' claims, stating that the Everetts "lack standing to pursue this action because they ha
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.
|
|