SUV Seat Back Collapse Leads to Paraplegic Injury

King, 33, was driving her 1996 Geo Tracker sport-utility vehicle (SUV) and wearing the three-point single retractor seat belt when she lost control of the vehicle. The SUV left the road, entered a ditch and struck a tree. On impact, King's seat back collapsed, and she contacted structures in the rear seat area. She suffered spinal fractures at T11-L1, a large ventral epidural hematoma at T9-L1, cord disruption at T10-11, and a fracture of the posterior elements of T10 and T11. As a result of her injuries, she suffers from paraplegia and uses a wheelchair. She also has a neurogenic bladder and bowel. King's past medical expenses were approximately $300,000, and her future medical expenses and life-care costs are estimated at more than $2 million. A medical clerk who had been earning a modest salary, her injuries have left her unable to return to work.

King and her husband retained Rob Ammons. Plaintiffs brought suit against, General Motors Corporation, the manufacturer of the SUV, alleging it was defective in that the seat failed to maintain King in the front of the vehicle. Plaintiffs asserted that a safer seat design that absorbed more energy and reduced or prevented her projection into the rear seat area would have prevented the injuries. Additionally, suit against the SUV manufacturer and the manufacturer of the seat belt system alleged the system was inadequate in that it failed to adequately restrain King. Plaintiffs claimed an integrated system with an all-belts-to-seat configuration-in which the belts are mounted on the seat rather than on the door or pillar-would have significantly reduced King's movement. Plaintiffs also filed suit against the car dealer where they had purchased the Tracker used, alleging the dealer was negligent in failing to inspect and discover that the driver's seat recliner mechanism was in a dangerous and defective condition. Specifically, Plaintiffs were prepared to offer evidence that during a postaccident investigation, several metal wrenches were found wrapped around the recliner mechanism. Plaintiffs also alleged that the dealer was strictly liable under Texas law as a seller of used products for selling a vehicle that was defective at the time of sale, even if it was not defective as originally designed and manufactured. Plaintiffs asserted that the lack of a warning about the substandard condition of the seat back recliner mechanism constituted a marketing defect present at the time the SUV was sold.

King v. General Motors Corp., Tex., Walker County 278th Jud. Dist. Ct., No. 21,829-C

Plaintiffs entered into confidential settlements with the vehicle and seat belt system manufacturers in mediation. Following Rob Ammons opening statement to the jury, the car dealer made a confidential settlement offer which was accepted by the Plaintiffs.