GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION V. SANCHEZ
997 S.W.2d 584 (1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: GM (D) appealed from a judgment of the Court of Appeals that rendered
judgment for actual and punitive damages for Sanchez (P), family of decedent, in P's action
for negligence and strict liability.
FACTS: There were no witnesses to this event. Sanchez (P) left his home to feed heifers.
Eventually the next day, the ranch foreman found P's lifeless body. From the circumstantial
facts, P stopped his truck and mis-shifted into what he thought was Park, but what was
actually an intermediate, 'perched' position between Park and Reverse where the transmission
was in 'hydraulic neutral.' Expert witnesses explained that hydraulic neutral exists at the
intermediate positions between the denominated gears, Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive, and
Low, where no gear is actually P walked toward the gate, the gear shift slipped from the
perched position of hydraulic neutral into Reverse and the truck started to roll backwards.
It caught P at or near the gate and slammed him up against it, trapping his right arm and
knee. P suffered a broken right arm and a damaged right knee where the gate crushed him
against the door pillar, the vertical metal column to which the door is hinged. P bled to
death from a deep laceration in his upper right arm. P's estate sued D for negligence and
products liability and for gross negligence based on a defect in the truck's transmission
and transmission control linkage. P offered circumstantial evidence of how a miss-shift
could occur. At trial D presented alternative theories but those were rejected by the jury.
D was found to be negligent and the transmission was found to be defectively designed with
inadequate warnings. P was also found to be 50% at fault for the accident. The trial court
disregarded the fault finding and rendered judgment for P for $8.5 million in actual and
punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed. D appealed. D challenges the trial court's
refusal to apply the comparative responsibility statute. P responds that the evidence
supports both the negligence and strict liability findings, and that P's negligence was
nothing more than a failure to discover or guard against a product defect. Thus, they
contend, comparative responsibility does not apply here as a defense to strict liability.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment