Jury Returns $122 Million Verdict Against GM in Crash That Left Boy With Brain Injuries

AP via TBO.com ^ | May 3, 2002 | AP Source

[greydog]

UNION SPRINGS, Ala. (AP) - A jury ordered General Motors to pay $122 million in a lawsuit alleging a defective door was to blame for the severe brain injuries suffered by a 12-year-old boy in a car wreck.

An Alabama law limiting punitive damages automatically cuts the award to $82 million, said GM spokesman Jay Cooney. He said the car's design met or exceeded every federal safety standard, and the automaker will appeal.

Thursday's verdict stemmed from a two-vehicle collision in 1999. Jeffrey Jernigan was in the front seat of a 1993 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with his seat belt on when the passenger compartment of the car collapsed on him, said plaintiff's lawyer Jere Beasley.

The boy's father sued GM, contending the car was defective.

"GM put a cost-reduction program into effect prior to the manufacture and sale of the Oldsmobile, which resulted in significant safety problems," Beasley said.

The verdict consisted of $22 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages.

Beasley said the money will help the family care for the boy for the rest of his life.

AP-ES-05-03-02 1635EDT

[RightWhale]

the money will help the family care for the boy for the rest of his life.

Or provide for any 12 villages in Afghanistan for the rest of time.

[Hodar]

the money will help the family care for the boy for the rest of his life.

$88 Million lump sum; invested with an average of 12.5% per annum return means that the boy and his family will somehow survive on $~1.1 Million per year (tax free) plus Medicare, Social Security (and any other goverment subsidies) for the rest of his life. This excludes any further income from life insurance, other pending lawsuits, or other claims. Naturally, everyone with a car has the same opportunity to sue, and get similar compensation.

[Fast 1975]

This is out of control- I thought punitive damages were for malicious behavior. The labor unions need to wake up out of bed with the Democrats who are obstructionists to this reform- but instead concerned with ergonomic regulations. Great news when auto manufacturers are already laying off workers. Not to mention the added costs passed onto consumers preventing them from buying new vehicles.

Strict liability needs to go, and this case should have never went to trial.

[nothingnew]

I feel sorry for the boy, but these $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$BULL SHIT suits have got to stop!...Where the farg do these friggin' lawyers think this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is coming from....I'm so pi$$ed off I need a drink!...oh wait...It's FRiday...I'll go back to the Smokers Lounge....ahhhhh.

FMCDH

[Springman]

The artical doesn't say where the other car hit, and the size of it. Say it was a cargo van, like I drive for work, and hit the door where the kid was sitting at 50 MPH, the poor SOB would not have had a chance and nothing but a tank could have saved him. A find deep pockets lawsuit.

[DryFly]

Punitive damages are for malicious behavior. Twelve normal people who heard all of the evidence concluded that there was intentional or malicious conduct. What do you, or the other posters on this thread, know about the case? Nothing, at least nothing more than the media has reported. And the media routinely gets it wrong, especially when it comes to reporting on the so called litigation explosion. The San Diego Union just had an article today stating that the explosion just isn't there. In fact, the number of personal-injury suits plummeted by about 50 percent in California over the past 15 years, according to the Judicial Council of California. So, let's leave it to the jurors to decide what is fair, not a bunch of know nothing knuckleheads.

[gaspar]

Is this the infamous southern county notorious for its damage awards?

[Tripleplay]

The artical doesn't say where the other car hit, and the size of it. Say it was a cargo van, like I drive for work, and hit the door where the kid was sitting at 50 MPH, the poor SOB would not have had a chance and nothing but a tank could have saved him. A find deep pockets lawsuit.

The car was traveling at 70 mph when it struck the defendant...........but this fact could not be submitted as evidence in the case.

[Springman]

70 MPH!!! I would like to know a car that could handle that impact without someone being like this poor kid. Well GM will raise the cost of thier cars in Sept. to pay for this.

[gonzo]

"...Conservative, Christian, gun-toting, Republican white male. Any problems with that?..."

Nope!

"...Punitive damages are for malicious behavior. .."

"...So, let's leave it to the jurors to decide what is fair, not a bunch of know nothing knuckleheads..."

OK! General Motors intentionally manufactured this Oldsmobile, so that it would intentionally injure this kid for life, and now they've been caught at their dastardly-deed, and they MUST BE PUNISHED!!

DryFly, do you have anything holding your ears apart? Then again, are you a lawyer, or are you just californicated?

I seldom indulge in personal-recognition here, but you are too stupid to be believed, and you called us 'know-nothing-knuckleheads'!

An immediate apology from you is order, DryFly, to everyone on this thread. Now, do the right thing! Stay well and vigilant...FRegards

[DryFly]

On the facts of this case I am as much a know nothing knucklehead as you, Gonzo. My point is/was that none of us know anything other than what was contained in a three paragraph news story. Twelve of our peers reviewed all of the facts and concluded that some part of the defendant's conduct was at the very least reckless, if not outright intentional. Granted it was a group of twelve Southerners, but I still think they know better than you or I.

[gonzo]

Ah, here it is.......

"...Twelve of our peers reviewed all of the facts and concluded that some part of the defendant's conduct was at the very least reckless, if not outright intentional. Granted it was a group of twelve Southerners, but I still think they know better than you or I..."

OK, pal. This is why I never get picked, or even ASKED for jury-duty!

My wifes' car of a few years ago was a '92, Olds 98, custom edition, and it was a superbly-engineered autombile, for a front-driver!

The idea that: " the defendant's conduct was at the very least reckless, if not outright intentional." is absolutely absurd!

You must be a trial-lawyer, Fly, preying on the good-works of honest people, because you sure-as-hell ain't an engineer!

Your remarks about a group of twelve Southerners, Are well noted. See you in hell, asshole!..........FRegards

[DryFly]

Illiteracy, contempt for the centuries old jury system and a stubbornly closed mind generally keep anyone off a jury, Gonzo. As for the ad hominem, it only bolsters my view of most of the yahoos south of the Mason-Dixon.