Silvestri v. General Motors Corp.

Facts

P was involved in a single-vehicle crash. P was driving his landlady's Chevrolet while intoxicated and at an excessive rate of speed, lost control of the vehicle on a curve and slid off the road. It crashed through a split-rail fence and, obliquely struck a utility pole coming to rest in the front yard of a residence. The airbag did not deploy. P was wearing his seatbelt, but he sustained severe facial lacerations and bone fractures, permanently disfiguring his face. He contends that, had the airbag deployed, he would not have sustained these disfiguring injuries. His parents retained attorney Moench, attorney at law, to protect P's criminal and civil actions. Later, P discharged Moench and retained present counsel. Moench retained two accident reconstructionists, Erik Carlsson and Albert Godfrey so that they could render expert opinions regarding the circumstances of the crash. They inspected and photographed the vehicle and inspected the site, and each prepared a report. Carlsson 'suggested' to Attorney Moench, at the time he conducted his inspection, that 'the car has to be kept'; and Carlsson stated, 'General Motors needs to see the car.' He also told Moench after the inspection that 'he does indeed have a case [against General Motors] because the airbag should have deployed.' Carlsson conducted no inspection of its undercarriage. At his deposition several years later, he 'seemed to recall' that the 'crush' measurement was 18 inches, but he could not definitely remember the measurement. Godfrey failed to make notes of any measurements that he may have taken during his inspection. He photographed a ruler on the hood of the vehicle to measure the extent to which the front of the hood was bent off centerline. Godfrey failed to measure the skid marks left by the vehicle, confessing that he formed his initial opinion about P's speed at the time of the accident by 'eyeball[ing]' the skid marks. The experts concluded from the data that the airbag should have deployed. Neither Moench nor P took any steps to preserve the vehicle or to notify General Motors (D) of the existence of the vehicle and P's potential claim. D was not notified almost three years later when P commenced this action. An insurance company sold the vehicle to Prestige Collision, Inc., which repaired the vehicle and then sold it. D found it in June 1998 in Quebec, Canada. D inspected the airbag sensing and diagnostic module, which monitors and retains in its memory defects in the airbag system, it found that the module had not been damaged in the accident. The module revealed that there had been no defect in the airbag system. P's expert questioned whether this was the original module that had been in the vehicle at the time of the accident. D concluded that the oblique impact of the vehicle with the utility pole did not meet the airbag deployment criteria set forth in D's warranty to provide head and face protection in a frontal impact. D stated that P's failure to preserve the vehicle in its condition after the accident 'hinders D's ability to defend Ps claim of a product defect.' After receipt of D's report, both Carlsson and Godfrey changed some of their conclusions about their observations of the vehicle following the accident. Following discovery, D filed a motion for summary judgment on various grounds, including the ground that P could not establish a prima facie case for a product defect and also for spoliation of evidence. The district court concluded that P had not stated a prima facie case and therefore did not address the spoliation issue. The appeals court reversed: P had stated a prima facie case. On remand, the district court addressed spoliation and dismissed the case on that basis. P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.