Civil Justice System Held Manufacturers of Exploding Chevy Malibus Accountable
Last Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on proposed criminal sanctions for corporate executives who deliberately endanger American lives by knowingly putting a defective product on the market. Witnesses at the hearing discussed both the exploding fuel tanks in the Chevy Malibu and the Guidant heart defibrillator as tragic examples of what happens when corporate executives place profits before human life. This is why defective auto design attorneys exist – to protect the rights of the consumer.
This press release was issued via email newsletter from ATLA (The Association of Trial Lawyers of America). US Recall News could not locate the press release on ATLA’s website, so it is reproduced below. For more information, please visit or contact The Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Auto Executives Knowingly Endangered Consumers to Increase Corporate Profits
Civil Justice System Held Manufacturers of Exploding Chevy Malibus Accountable
Quote of the Week
“If somebody is responsible for wrongdoing, they must pay for it. Many of the (GM) witnesses, they got caught in a lie many times. Not just one of them – but all of them.”
– Pedro Martinez, juror in the Anderson family’s lawsuit
News & Research
Making Americans Safer: When corporations choose profits over safety, the civil justice system uncovers the truth and gets dangerous products off the shelves
Smoking Gun Document Shows GM Put Profits Before Human Life
Testimony of Anderson Family’s Attorney Before Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Product Safety
Detroit News: Courts fill void left by NHTSA
A $9 Safety Improvement Could Have Saved the Anderson Family from Horrific Burns
On Christmas Eve, 1993, Patricia Anderson drove her four children, ages six to 15, home from church services in their Chevy Malibu. As Ms. Anderson pulled up to a red light they were rear-ended by another car. The front of the other car was forced partially underneath her rear bumper and punctured her fuel tank in several places. The leaking fuel ignited, and the car burst into flames with the force of 108 sticks of dynamite.
Patricia and her children suffered severe and debilitating burns. Eight-year-old Kiontra was burned when, after escaping, she ran back to the car to help get her younger sister out. Three of Anderson’s four children were burned over 60 percent of their bodies.
Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on product safety that focused partly on the Chevy Malibu case as an example of egregious corporate misconduct.
What makes this story even more tragic is that the injuries suffered were wholly preventable. General Motors knew for several decades that the placement of the fuel tank in the Malibu made the car unreasonably dangerous and at risk of exploding in the event of a rear collision.
Yet instead of putting the safety of families like the Andersons first, GM made a conscious decision to market a product they knew would kill people.
In an example of Pinto math, an internal GM memo showed that the company estimated that deaths resulting from post-collision fuel-tank fires cost General Motors $2.40 per car. This calculation was based on an estimate that each life “has a value of $200,000.” Internal memos also showed that the company had developed an improved design that would do a better job of protecting the gas tank in collisions. Improving the design would cost the company $8.59 per car. Executives decided not to do so.
In 1999, a jury found that General Motors Corp., in an effort to cut costs and increase profits, knowingly endangered the lives of their customers and ordered the company to provide compensation for the horrific burns to the Anderson family.
On The Hill
Last Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on proposed criminal sanctions for corporate executives who deliberately endanger American lives by knowingly putting a defective product on the market. Witnesses at the hearing discussed both the exploding fuel tanks in the Chevy Malibu and the Guidant heart defibrillator as tragic examples of what happens when corporate executives place profits before human life.
Read the Judiciary Committee Testimony
By the Numbers
$8.59:Amount that GM estimated it would cost to improve the fuel tank design, per car.
[Source: Respondent’s Brief, CA Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate District, Case No. B135147]
$4 billion: Amount GM spends yearly on advertising.
[Source: Trial Testimony]
500: Number of fatalities GM estimated would occur every year because of post-collision fuel tank fires.
[Source: Internal GM Document (Ivey Memo)]
5 million: Number of GM vehicles with the dangerous fuel tank that are still on the road, including the Malibu, Oldsmobile Cutlass, Pontiac Grand Am and El Camino.
[Source: Trial Testimony]
Jury Finds Against GM for Dangerous Fuel Tanks
CNN, 7/9/99
The jury found that General Motors Corp. – as a cost-cutting initiative – chose to use a less expensive and less safe fuel tank design in the 1970s rather than more costly tanks the company had successfully designed and tested that would survive crashes at speeds as high as 60 mph to 70 mph … ‘They made a decision it would be cheaper to come to court to defend these lawsuits instead of making the safety improvement that was necessary,’ plaintiffs’ attorney Brian J. Panish told reporters.”
Gas Tank Fires: The Chevrolet Malibu
Consumer Law News, 7/12/99
“It is clear that researchers have known for years that placing the tank between the frame rails and forward of the rear axle is the safest place. That it is never put in a crush zone was well understood by the time the 1973 GM pickup truck was in its design stage. … Clearly by 1974 all automakers had available the technology and knowledge necessary to design and construct safe fuel systems. It is difficult to believe that any responsible engineer or manufacturer would choose to ignore these safety suggestions and build a system susceptible to post-crash fire.”
It appears that the corporate executives involved are responsiable for the death and mutilation of many Chevy oweners. Did any of these executives get prision sentences for their part in such an egreous decision?