The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that the manufacturer of allegedly defective window glass on a 2000 Chevrolet Blazer must defend against a product liability lawsuit brought by the estate of an un…
The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that the manufacturer of allegedly defective window glass on a 2000 Chevrolet Blazer must defend against a product liability lawsuit brought by the estate of an unlicensed 15-year-old driver who was thrown through the shattered side window in a rollover accident. The court reinstated claims that Pilkington North America Inc. negligently designed, manufactured and distributed defective glass that, the estate contends, failed to minimize the possibility of shattering in such a crash. The company has asked the court for a new hearing, said defense lawyer William Griffin III, of Little Rock. The driver, Stephanie Wagner, was alone in her grandmother“s Blazer when she lost control, crossed the center line, hit an embankment and overturned in April 2001, the court said. The weather was dry and clear. She died at the scene. Whether the victim was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident is in dispute, estate lawyer Mary Wolff said in an interview. The estate sued for USD 10 million in compensatory damages and an unspecified sum in punitive damages. It claims laminated glass was a safer alternative than the tempered glass that Pilkington manufactured. However, the company said the glass met federal standards. It denied that the glass was defective, denied designing it and said it merely followed General Motors“ specifications in manufacturing the glass. Mr. Griffin said the driver would have died irrespective of the type of glass that had been used because the window was pierced by a fence post in the rollover. The case against Pilkington was dismissed by a Franklin County Circuit Court judge without trial. However, a divided Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the case can proceed on negligence and strict liability claims against Pilkington. The court said a trial is needed to determine whether the glass shattered because of a defect and whether Pilkington may be responsible for punitive damages based on its alleged knowledge that tempered glass does not adequately protect against ejection. The court also threw out Pilkington“s argument based on the so-called components-parts doctrine that suppliers of inherently safe components are not liable for injuries that occur when the component is integrated into a larger system, such as a car. In its majority opinion by Justice Jim Gunter, the court emphasized that Arkansas has not adopted that legal doctrine. Dissenting Justice Annabelle Imber said the estate failed to show that Pilkington violated a legal obbligation to the driver. The dissent also said federal safety standards do not require “ejection mitigation” for side windows in passenger vehicles. Meanwhile, a related case is pending against General Motors and Rhodes Chevrolet Co., the Van Buren, Arkansas, dealer that sold the vehicle. The estate had excluded them as defendants from the original lawsuit to expedite the appeal against Pilkington. That lawsuit alleges that the Blazer“s side window system and supplemental restraint system were defective and that a salesman for the dealership misrepresented the vehicle“s safety when the driver“s grandmother asked about rollover problems. GM spokeswoman Geri Lama said in a statement, “The Blazer involved in the accident is a safe and well-designed vehicle that met all applicable GM internal and federal safety standards, and GM will vigorously defend itself in this case”. Ms. Lama said GM is also defending the dealership.