St. Louis City jury rules for DaimlerChrysler in lawsuit over safety

St. Louis Daily Record & St. Louis Countian, Dec 14, 2005 by Emily Umbright

The DaimlerChrysler Corp. had a big day on Monday in the St. Louis area. It announced a $1 billion investment in its Fenton, Mo., assembly plant, and it successfully defended against a multimillion- dollar lawsuit in St. Louis City.

After six weeks of trial proceedings, a jury returned a speedy verdict in favor of DaimlerChysler Corp. in a wrongful death and personal injuries suit filed almost three years ago.

Survivors of a single-car accident filed suit against DaimlerChrysler in January 2003, claiming product defects and negligent design caused the death of two passengers and the injuries of three when the driver lost control of her 2002 Town and Country minivan and it rolled into a ditch.

Despite the urgings of plaintiffs' counsel to send a message to the Detroit carmaker on safety, the 9-3 jury declined to award the plaintiffs $400 million in punitive damages and several million dollars in damages.

The decision came after four hours of closing arguments and less than two hours of deliberations.

DaimlerChrysler spokesperson Elaine Lutz said it was a testament to the safety of the vehicle that five out of seven passengers survived.

DaimlerChrysler believes the jury reached a correct verdict, she said. Our sympathies are with the families.

The presentation, concluding on the first day of the seventh week, depicted jury trials in a digital era as the parties relied on flat-screen televisions, laptop computers and PowerPoint illustrations to communicate their claims to the 12 jurors and eight alternates.

Judge Mark Neill even had to ask the crowded courtroom four times while reading about 40 pieces of jury instructions to turn off their cell phones.

But the courtroom was full of traditional samples of evidence as well, including actual car doors and bucket seats, expert witnesses and a train-board-type model of the Alabama highway upon which passengers were riding when the accident occurred.

Among the contentions put forth by Armstrong Teasdale attorney Paul Kovacs during closing arguments was the idea, buttressed by internal documents and a whistle-blower witness, that DaimlerChrysler's corporate culture depicted a long history of low safety priorities and high concerns over cost.

When they say to you this isn't about cost, sure it is: They sell a million of these minivans a year, he argued.

Specifically, Kovacs pointed to a deposition by an employee who said the company knew for 17 years that seatbelts would not work in the event of a side impact or rollover.

While the plaintiffs contended that different seatbelts could have mitigated some of the damages, DaimlerChrysler maintained that in a violent accident of this capacity, no seatbelt in any car could prevent sideways movement.

Kovacs also noted a safety team in 1993 talked about putting side airbags into cars and making roofs stronger to avoid crushing in a rollover, but by 2002, the year of the minivan in question, the carmaker hadn't made improvements.

DaimlerChrysler explained in its closing remarks that it hadn't made the airbag improvements because it didn't know the exact effects of side airbags on children.

If it's a danger to the public, it would be unethical, contended New Orleans attorney Woody Norwood on behalf of the carmaker.

In justifying the request for up to $400 million in punitive damages, Kovacs explained that the amount was equal to what the company spent on developing and marketing Stow'n Go seating found in new minivans.

You need to send a message that DaimlerChrysler hasn't got. . . . Put a warning on it or fix it, he told the jury.

Kovacs also illustrated how the safety devices found in Chrysler vehicles did not measure up to the protection provided by devices found in its corporate sister, the Mercedes Benz.

Mercedes is saying there are airbags; Chrysler is saying there aren't, Kovacs contended. Who can make it right?

Norwood maintained that safety was a high priority for the company and that the vehicle was safe. He also reminded the jury that what they were looking for was not just whether the minivan was dangerous but whether the defect was unreasonably so.

It's not just the fact that you can get in an accident, he said.

In shirking liability for the accident, Norwood noted the driver admitted in testimony that she fell asleep or was mesmerized as her car went off the highway.

The vehicle didn't do that, he argued.

Using the catchphrase, Is this nitpicking? I don't think so, Norwood centered on debunking the plaintiffs' experts and picking apart the plaintiffs' complaints on the lack of various technical features, including side airbags, strong roofs and laminated glass.

To suggest that we just gave something up . . . is just taking things out of context, Norwood argued.

Acknowledging the severity of the injuries, Norwood said they were to be expected due to the nature of the accident, not because of any design defect.

Kovacs said in an interview with Bloomberg News on Tuesday that his team of attorneys was surprised by the verdict and unsure about pursuing an appeal.