by Court Found 1998 Chevrolet Safety Belt System Not Guilty
Automaker General Motors avoided paying $73 million following a decision by an American jury. The case concerned a two-point lap safety belt installed in a 1998 Chevrolet pickup truck, which, according to the plaintiff, caused serious injuries during a 2018 accident. This decision allowed the company to avoid significant financial losses and simultaneously ignited a debate about the safety of older cars.
Key Points of the Case
Details of the Accident and Injuries
The case was in the court system for over five years before it was heard in Las Vegas. Ali Meade was in the back seat of a 1998 Chevrolet C/K 1500 pickup when the vehicle collided with a tree and a boulder in August 2018. Although she survived, she suffered numerous injuries, including a spinal fracture, a ruptured colon, and abdominal trauma. She claimed that the cause of these injuries was the “negligent and improper design” of the lap belt.
General Motors’ Arguments
Meade insisted that if the car had had a three-point belt, her injuries would have been less severe. However, General Motors denied this, stating that at the time of the pickup’s sale in 1998, it met or exceeded all federal safety standards. The company added that three-point belts were not mandatory for the center rear seat.
During the trial, GM lawyers explained that the safety belt was designed to distribute the impact energy and prevent the passenger from being thrown forward or ejected from the vehicle.
Position of the Victim’s Lawyer
Meade’s lawyer, Robert Eglet, argued that the three-point belt should have been standard equipment, and its installation was economically feasible, but GM did not do it. He stated:
“The lap belt threw her forward sharply, like folding a knife. The belt that was supposed to protect her became a weapon that destroyed her.”
Eglet also noted that Meade lives with constant pain and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
Court Decision and Reaction
The jury found that the lap belt performed its primary function — it prevented more serious injuries. They also decided that GM had no obligation to warn Meade about the belt’s limitations, as it was not defective or dangerous. Eglet asked the court to award $64.8 million in compensation and over $8.6 million to cover medical expenses and lost earnings. He called the jury’s decision shocking, stating that they clearly proved the product’s defect and the lack of warnings about the danger.
This case raises important questions about manufacturers’ responsibility for the safety of older vehicles that met the standards of their time but may be considered outdated by modern criteria. Although GM avoided financial losses, the incident may influence future lawsuits and safety policies for long-serving automobiles. Many drivers and passengers may not be aware of the difference in the level of protection between different types of safety belts, which highlights the need for greater awareness of the risks associated with older vehicles.
