Phillips v. Chrysler LLC (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. BCV 07184)
On January 16, 2008, after nearly a three month trial, Partners Philip Cosgrove and Dommond Lonnie obtained a defense verdict in a product liability action for quadriplegia injuries in a rollover accident. The case was brought by attorney Michael Puize, who claimed, through his experts Don Friedman and Dr. Joseph Burton, that the roof of plaintiff's 1993 Grand Cherokee was defective in design, rendering the roof structure susceptible to buckling during a rollover accident.  It was asserted the "buckle" intruded into the passenger compartment and struck Ms. Phillips in the head, causing her spinal cord injury.  Mr. Puize requested the jury to award $113,500,000.00 in damages. Chrysler claimed the roof was neither defective nor did any claimed "buckling" cause Ms. Phillips' quadripelgia  Rather, Chrysler asserted plaintiff's paralysis was caused by her head moving to and striking the roof (and in effect the ground itself) early in the rollover sequence, before any meaningful damage/deformation of the roof structure occurred.  For more information, click here.

Domel  v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. PC030045Y)
On May 14, 2007, after nearly a month long bifurcated trial, Partners Philip Cosgrove and Rod Cappy obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a product liability action for quadriplegia injuries sustained in a rollover accident. The case was brought by attorney Dennis Elber, who claimed, through his experts Steve Syson and Peter Francis, that the 2001 Dodge Viper was defective in design, because the vehicle did not have sufficient roof strength and the right rear half shaft axle failed and caused the incident to occur. DaimlerChrysler Corporation claimed that the roof was not defective, the axle broke during the rollover sequence and that plaintiff’s drinking and speeding caused him to lose control of the vehicle.

Khoperia  v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 334291)
On September 19, 2006, after a three week trial, Partners Philip Cosgrove and Rod Cappy obtained a defense verdict in a product liability action. The case was brought by attorney Terrence Butler, who claimed, through his experts Gerald Rosenbluth, William Harrigan and Michael Schulz, that the fuel hose and clamp of a 1991 Chrysler Lebaron  was defective in design and caused plaintiff’s burn injuries. DaimlerChrysler Corporation claimed that the fuel hose and clamp were not defective, that there were no other failures of similar clamps in other Lebaron vehicles and the incident was caused by plaintiff's negligent conduct and misuse of the vehicle by pulling off the fuel hose while the engine was cranked by plaintiff's ex-wife.


Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIN 042095)
Partners David Schultz and Barry Schirm successfully obtained an order granting summary judgment against four plaintiffs' product liability claims that alleged the seat belts in a 2003 Town & Country minivan were defective and caused the occupants to sustain enhanced injuries. Plaintiffs' alleged the vehicle was equipped with "GEN 3" seat belts, which they contended were defectively designed and inadvertently released during the accident. Plaintiffs claimed the defective seat belts caused the death of Eula Mae Gladney and serious personal injuries sustained by three other occupants, Richard Taylor, Johnnie Taylor and Dorthia Hefner. Plaintiffs also asserted a claim for punitive damages against DaimlerChrysler.  DaimlerChrysler Corporation filed two motions for summary judgment against plaintiff's claims. The first motion attacked the element of defect to plaintiffs' claims, based on plaintiffs' discovery admissions and declaration from a DaimlerChrysler engineer. The second motion attacked the element of causation and enhancement of injuries, based on plaintiff's failure to preserve the allegedly defective seat belts and a declaration from a biomechanical engineer. In opposition to the motions, plaintiffs submitted declarations from an expert who opined the seat belts were defective and caused plaintiffs' enhanced injuries. DaimlerChrysler's reply briefs moved to strike plaintiffs' expert's declarations on the ground he was unqualified and his opinions were speculative since plaintiff failed to preserve the allegedly defective seat belts for inspection. On April 28, 2006, Judge Michael Anello of the San Diego County Superior Court issued orders granting DaimlerChrysler's motion to strike plaintiffs' expert's declarations, and granting summary judgment against all the plaintiffs' claims.

Dannenfelser v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (370 F.Supp.2d1091 (D.Haw.2005))
Partner David Schultz successfully obtained a published decision in Hawaii that allows a  defendant in a crashworthiness case to introduce evidence of a plaintiff’s negligence and apportion fault to a plaintiff for their negligence in causing the accident. Plaintiff's claims were based on an allegedly defective air bag that did not deploy during the accident and caused plaintiff to sustain enhanced injuries when her face struck the steering wheel. Plaintiff contended her negligence in causing the accident was irrelevant and DaimlerChrysler should not be allowed to apportion fault to her for causing the accident, since she was only suing for the enhanced injuries caused by the second collision inside the vehicle as a result of the air bag's failure to deploy during the accident. Since there was no controlling law in Hawaii on this issue, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment to preclude any comparative negligence defense, relying principally on a case form Florida that held a plaintiff's fault for causing the accident is not relevant to a crashworthiness claim. Based on cases from a majority of jurisdictions, including California, that hold a defendant in a crashworthiness case is entitled to apportion fault to a plaintiff for their negligence in causing the accident, we were able to convince the court that this is the better reasoned rule. After substantial briefing and oral argument, Chief Judge David Ezra of the United States District Court in Hawaii issued a published opinion on March 31, 2005 that agreed with our position on this issue. As a result, we were then able to favorably resolve the case, since the evidence we developed in discovery established plaintiff negligently caused the accident by driving while intoxicated, exceeding the speed limit and crashing into a pole on the side of the road.

Phillips v. DaimlerChryslerCorporation (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. BCV 07184)
Partners David Schultz and Philip Cosgrove successfully obtained an order granting summary adjudication against a plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in a product liability action for quadriplegia injuries in a rollover accident. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was based on the contention that the vehicle's roof structure was defectively designed in conscious disregard of safety. The firm moved for summary adjudication against this claim, based on testing that confirmed the roof structure was designed in a manner greatly exceeding the strength requirements of FMVSS 216.  After several rounds of briefing, Judge John Vander Feer issued an order on August 18,  2005 that granted summary adjudication in favor of DaimlerChrysler and dismissed plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. On October 6, 2005, the firm convinced the court to deny plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and/or motion for new trial.

Blair v. General Motors Corp  (San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. 319045)
Partner David Schultz successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation against a plaintiff's wrongful death product liability action. Plaintiff alleged claims for design defect and failure to warn that were based on plaintiff's decedent's exposure to asbestos while replacing brakes on General Motors' vehicles. Plaintiff alleged the brake systems were defective since they required asbestos-containing brake linings and General Motors failed to warn of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing brake linings. We moved for summary judgment on the ground plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos-containing brake linings manufactured by General Motors and no duty could be imposed on General Motors for alleged injuries caused by asbestos exposure from brake linings that were designed, manufactured and installed by other entities. After several rounds of briefing, the court issued an order granting General Motors' motion for summary judgment in January of 2005.

Defer v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Firm successfully argues appeal before Nevada Supreme Court in product liability action against DaimlerChrysler, for more information click here.


Illinois Tool Works v. Fallin
GCS obtained affirmation by the Fourth Appellate District (California) of trial court’s granting of motion to quash in case involving personal jurisdiction, for more information click here. 


Dozier v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America
Firm wins appeal before California Court of Appeal for the Second District on behalf of General Motors Corporation and Honeywell International Inc.  In a unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeal  affirmed the trial court's orders that dismissed plaintiff’s action and denied their CCP 473 motion.  For more information click here.


Socorro Reid v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Firm wins summary judgment in air bag case, click here for more information.


Recent Appointment
Barry Schirm has been appointed by Dennis Thelen, President of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel  (ASCDC), to serve as a committee chair on the Product Liability Substantive Law Committee of the ASCDC for 2005.


Judges Pro Tempore
Barry Schirm and Dommond Lonnie  recently served as judges pro tempore/settlement officers for the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Their volunteer services were provided through a program sponsored by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel.