— General Motors must face a second trial in the case of Allie Mead, an occupant of what is described as a 1998 Chevrolet truck.
A Las Vegas jury handed GM the verdict in late 2025, but the judge has granted Mead a new trial.
In August 2018 at about 2:00 a.m., Allie Mead was an occupant in the truck that crashed into a boulder and a tree. Mead was wearing a seat belt in the rear center truck seat but still suffered severe injuries in the crash.
She blamed her injuries on the Chevy truck lap seat belt which held her in place during the crash. The lap seat belt is known as a 2-point belt, while a 3-point seat belt includes a lap belt and another belt across the chest and shoulder.
According to the lawsuit, GM should have used a 3-point seat belt in the 1998 Chevy truck.
Mead claims the seat belt she wore had a “negligent and improper design" that caused her serious injuries. She also complains GM should have warned her about the allegedly defective seat belt.
Judge Tara Clark Newberry allowed the lawsuit to move through the court system for five years before it reached trial at the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas.
General Motors argued there was nothing defective about the 2-point lap belt because it met or exceeded all safety standards, standards that did not require a 3-point rear seat belt in the 1998 Chevy truck.
The Las Vegas jury also heard GM explain how any component of a safe legal vehicle can injure an occupant in a violent crash, be it a seat belt, a steering wheel, a mirror, etc. But just because a vehicle component can injure an occupant doesn't mean the component is defective or dangerous.
General Motors also told the jury Mead's rear center seat belt did what it was designed to do by holding her in place and preventing her from being ejected or thrown through the truck.
Mead asked the jury to award her at least $65 million, but the jury concluded General Motors owed her nothing because the 2018 Chevy truck rear seat belt wasn't defective.
However, lawyers for Mead argued the verdict was tainted because GM's lawyers had ignored important directions from the judge. The judge agreed and said Mead deserved a new trial.
According to Judge Tara Clark Newberry:
"When counsel deliberately violates orders, invents facts, misstates the record and substitutes inadmissible scientific conclusions for missing expert testimony, no series of curative instructions can undo the damage."
The case is Allie Mead v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. A-20-813945-C.