— A GM seat belt lawsuit that has been in court five years is over after a Las Vegas jury returned a verdict in favor of General Motors.
GM was looking at paying $73 million if it lost the lawsuit which was filed by Chevy truck occupant Allie Mead.
According to the lawsuit, the crash occurred in August 2018 at about 1:50 a.m. with Allie Mead seated in the rear center truck seat and wearing a 2-point lap seat belt.
Described as a 1998 Chevrolet truck, the vehicle crashed into a tree and a boulder, causing serious injuries to Mead.
The plaintiff claims her injuries were caused by the lap seat belt which allegedly had a “negligent and improper design.” The lawsuit claims her injuries wouldn't have occurred if the rear seat belt would have been a 3-point design.
A 2-point seat belt is a lap belt, while a 3-point seat belt also includes a belt that goes over the chest and shoulder.
In the lawsuit, Mead claims the lap seat belt was unreasonably dangerous and General Motors should have warned her about it.
Although Judge Tara Clark Newberry could have dismissed the case long ago, she allowed it to proceed to trial at the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas.
GM's argument was simple from the beginning. The model year 1998 truck met or exceeded all federal safety standards when it was manufactured and sold, and the regulations did not require a 3-point seat belt in the rear center seating position.
However, every automaker is nervous about going to trial about these cases because jurors have a habit of ruling a vehicle is defective and dangerous even if federal safety regulators say it isn't. In essence, a judge and jury can take on the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its trained and qualified investigators.
Two recent examples involve Ford Super Duty truck roofs that collapsed in violent crashes. Although the trucks and their roofs passed all federal safety standards, one jury originally came back with a $1.7 billion verdict against Ford, while another jury returned a verdict of $2.5 billion against the automaker.
A vehicle crash, especially a violent collision, can cause any part of a vehicle to injure an occupant, and GM argued a seat belt is no different. But just because a seat belt can cause an injury in a crash doesn't mean the seat belt is defective or dangerous.
GM argued a seat belt is designed to redistribute energy and prevent an occupant from being thrown forward through the vehicle or ejected from a vehicle. GM says the lap belt met or exceeded all federal safety standards, and just because an occupant can be injured in a crash doesn't mean the design was "negligent."
According to GM, the rear center lap belt did its job by helping to protect an occupant and by reducing the risk of injuries or death. And the jury agreed.
According to the jury, GM did not need to warn Mead about the 2-point lap belt because the seat belt wasn't defective or unreasonably dangerous.