| Products Liability case nets record settlement |
 |
 |
 |
|
OCTOBER 16, 2000 VIRGINIA LAWYERS WEEKLY PRODUCTS CASE NETS RECORD SETTLEMENT Published: Monday, October 16, 2000 © Lawyers Weekly Inc. A $14 million settlement has been reached in a case in which a woman was severely burned when the three-wheel parking enforcement vehicle she was driving tipped over and caught fire. The settlement, which was reached partly through mediation three weeks before trial, is believed to be the largest in a products liability case in Virginia. Retired Judge Robert L. Harris, Sr. of the McCammon Group was the mediator. The case style is being kept confidential, upon requests by lawyers on both sides. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond and was to be heard by Judge James R. Spencer. The defendants included the manufacturer and distributor of the vehicle. Click here to read the Trial Report on this case. According to Michael F. Imprevento of Norfolk, the lead attorney for the plaintiff, the facts of the case are these: The plaintiff was employed by the Richmond police department as a parking enforcement officer. She was required to drive a three-wheeled motorized vehicle. On April 20, 1998, she was driving the vehicle around a curve on Hermitage Road in Richmond when it tipped over. Fuel spilled from the filler neck, which had no cap on it. The fuel ignited. The woman was trapped in the enclosed passenger compartment, which was engulfed in flame. A bystander kicked in the windshield of the compartment and pulled the woman out. The woman suffered second-and third-degree burns over more then half her body. Injuries included loss of her ears and nose, the fingers on both hands and damage to her corneas. Special damages were estimated at $1.2 million in medical bills and lost wages. The plaintiff's case honed in on two factors -- the vehicle's stability, and "how and why the fuel escaped from the filler neck," Imprevento said. A subsequent investigation by the Richmond Police and the Virginia Commonwealth University Crash Team concluded the accident was the plaintiff's fault, she had been driving too fast to negotiate the curve, and she was driving the vehicle without a gas cap, they said. Richmond police searched the accident scene and retraced the plaintiff's route, but did not find the cap, Imprevento said. However, the plaintiff provided evidence that she "was a wonderful employee who had an excellent reputation of operating by the book," Imprevento said. The plaintiff testified that the gas cap was on at the time of the accident. Subsequent investigation revealed that other drivers of the vehicles had occasionally lost caps, some due to a vibration contention the defendants' experts contested. The plaintiff's investigation also determined that manufacturers of other types of transport had stopped using the cap style that came with the vehicle involved in the suit. And the plaintiff suggested the filler neck in the vehicle did not conform to industry standards. The cap used a bayonet-style lock, and could be placed on the neck without being fully sealed; consequently, "the integrity of the fuel system was seriously compromised." Imprevento said. The defendants countered that any such defect was de minimis and would not have any effect on the clamping pressure necessary to keep the cap on the filler neck. Richmond police now are using a newer model of the vehicle, which has a relocated gas tank and a different cap model, Imprevento said. The plaintiff's lawyers found that information in discovery and planned to introduce it during trial, if they could overcome barriers to presenting subsequent corrective measures. "This was a very technical and complex case," Imprevento said. "It was a difficult case." Legal issues Among the legal difficulties were determining what industry standard applies to regulating three-wheeled parking enforcement vehicles. The defense contended the vehicle is required to conform to standards required of motorcycles. The plaintiff argued that standards governing passenger cars or light trucks should be applied. Federal court requires an analysis of violations of applicable standards, as well as consumer expectations, in products liability cases, Imprevento said. To prepare the case in the "rocket docket" time frame in the Eastern District, Imprevento employed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)6, which allows taking the depositions of corporate designees who can speak for the way the corporation operates. Rather than depose numerous employee witnesses, through FRCP 30(b)6 the plaintiff provides the corporation with a list of requirements that their witness must meet, and the corporation selects an appropriate designee. Consequently, Imprevento was able to depose only one witness each on such issues as design, warranty disclaimers and regulatory classification, he said. Richmond lawyer Dabney J. Carr IV, who represented the defendant distributor, said his client settled before the mediation. "We felt that we had a reasonable chance of summary judgment," but decided to settle based upon "the seriousness of the injuries," he said. Also representing the plaintiff in the case were Richmond lawyers Robert E. Walker Jr., the first lawyer consulted by the plaintiff; Donald J. Gee and A. Donald McEachin, who were brought in by Walker; and Norfolk lawyer Jeffrey A. Breit, a partner of Imprevento. Imprevento and Breit were associated by Gee and McEachin's firm because of the Norfolk firm's experience in products liability, Imprevento said.
This article is (c) 2000 Lawyers Weekly, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Awarded: $14,000,000 |
Some people say personal injury law is just about money. It's not.
It's about rebuilding the face of a young girl shattered by a drunk driver. It's about college money for 2 young boys, their father killed by a speeding tractor trailer.