Is General Motors Corp. a Murderer?
According to internal GM memos, deaths resulting from post-collision fuel-tank fires cost the company $2.40 per car, based on the estimate that each life "has a value of $200,000". Improving the design of the car would cost approximately $8.59 per car, yet GM executives chose not to do so.
For about 9 bucks, the Andersons' tragic story would never have happened. On Christmas Eve, 1993, Patricia Anderson was driving her four children home from church services when her car was rear-ended. The other car's front end had forced its way under the rear bumper of Ms. Anderson's car, puncturing her fuel tank in several places. The fuel then ignited, turning the car into an instant inferno. Three of Ms. Anderson's four children suffered burns on more than 60% of their flesh, including eight-year-old Kiontra who tried to get back into the car to save her younger sister.
A 1999 jury found General Motors Corp. had knowingly endangered the lives of their customers in order to cut costs and increase profits. The company was ordered to provide compensation to the Andersons for their horrific burns.
When facing such incredibly defective product damages, it is crucial to have a good personal injury lawyer on your case. Feel free to contact a reliable attorney such as Siegfried and Jensen in Salt Lake City, Utah.
For about 9 bucks, the Andersons' tragic story would never have happened. On Christmas Eve, 1993, Patricia Anderson was driving her four children home from church services when her car was rear-ended. The other car's front end had forced its way under the rear bumper of Ms. Anderson's car, puncturing her fuel tank in several places. The fuel then ignited, turning the car into an instant inferno. Three of Ms. Anderson's four children suffered burns on more than 60% of their flesh, including eight-year-old Kiontra who tried to get back into the car to save her younger sister.
A 1999 jury found General Motors Corp. had knowingly endangered the lives of their customers in order to cut costs and increase profits. The company was ordered to provide compensation to the Andersons for their horrific burns.
When facing such incredibly defective product damages, it is crucial to have a good personal injury lawyer on your case. Feel free to contact a reliable attorney such as Siegfried and Jensen in Salt Lake City, Utah.
1 Comments:
This is a one-sided piece of inflammatory drivel. I would suggest folks find more reputable attorney's than these guys! You can also read this:
http://www.riskworld.com/pressrel/1999/PR99aa28.htm
No doubt plantiffs attorney's love this case because of the massive and completely baseless size of the award (it was 1000 times larger than any previous award!)
Unfortunately, the award was based on sympathy rather than facts or logic.
* The Anderson car was rear-ended at 50-70 mph by a drunk driver (which the jury was not allowed to hear) Not to minimize their pain, but it is fortunate that they survived. How the liability switched over to the automaker instead of the driver is beyond me.
* The Malibu met all government safety regulations, in fact it had an above-average fire and safety record
* 95% of cars produced in the 1970s had the same fuel tank placement (the so-called design improvement was to move the tank to above the axle)
* The massive collision impact moved the rear bumper 43 inches; which plantiffs experts acknowledge would have also breached an above-axle tank placement)
* The memo was related to a 1973 car, not the 1979 Malibu, which was designed from scratch (so there would not have been additional cost to move the tank). It simply quantified the cost to change the design.
* The memo even concluded that the proposed move of the gas tank in the 1973 car would make it less safe!
So how again is GM liable if it produced an above average safety car, consistent in design with 95% of cars on the road, completely meeting government safety standards?
Post a Comment
<< Home