Cruz v. Daimler Chrysler Motors Corp.

66 A.3d 446 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was cleaning the inside of his minivan-a 1996 Grand Caravan manufactured by D-when both front airbags unexpectedly deployed, injuring him. P had purchased the vehicle three years earlier from Ricky Smith and had been informed that the vehicle was safe and had never been involved in an accident. P alleged that the vehicle had been in at least one accident before he purchased it. P sued for negligence and strict products liability against Ds. P also sought recovery against Ricky Smith for negligent misrepresentation and against DaimlerChrysler based on failure to warn and negligent design. P's wife sued for loss of consortium. Ps eventually added a count seeking recovery based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. D filed a suggestion of bankruptcy in May 2009, and Ps dismissed all claims. Ricky Smith moved for summary judgment. Ps argued that the facts presented 'a classic case for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The court noted that Ps had produced no evidence to demonstrate that Ricky Smith was negligent. She also found that Ps could not make out a claim for negligence using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. On misrepresentation, there was no evidence that employees of Ricky Smith knew that the statements they allegedly made about the vehicle's condition were false. Ricky Smith got the summary judgment, and Ps appealed.