Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesnegligenceliabilitytrialverdictstrict liabilitycontributory negligencejury trialjury instructions
damagesnegligenceliabilitytrialverdictstrict liabilityjury instructionsverdict form

Related Cases

Collins v. Navistar, Inc., 214 Cal.App.4th 1486, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 137, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,090, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3567, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4169
View Case »
Sanders v. Alger, 242 Ariz. 246, 394 P.3d 1083, 766 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22
View Case »
Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742
View Case »
Ruple v. Brooks, 352 N.W.2d 652
View Case »
Doser v. Interstate Power Co., 173 N.W.2d 556
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shipler v. General Motors Corp., 271 Neb. 194, 710 N.W.2d 807, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,435

Facts

On September 11, 1997, Kenneth Long lost control of his 1996 Chevrolet S–10 Blazer, resulting in a rollover that left passenger Penny Shipler a quadriplegic. Shipler sued GM, claiming the vehicle's roof was defectively designed, leading to her injuries. GM denied negligence and argued that Long's actions were the proximate cause of the accident. The trial court excluded evidence of Shipler's alleged contributory negligence and her use of a seatbelt, ultimately leading to a jury trial that found in favor of Shipler.

On September 11, 1997, Long lost control of his 1996 Chevrolet S–10 Blazer, and the Blazer rolled at least four times. Shipler, who was riding in the front passenger seat, was rendered a quadriplegic as a result of the rollover.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether GM was negligent in the design of the Blazer's roof, whether GM was strictly liable for a defect in the design, and whether the jury instructions were appropriate.

The issues presented for trial were whether GM was negligent in the design of the Blazer's roof, whether GM was strictly liable for a defect in the design of the roof, whether the negligence or defect in design caused Shipler's injury, and the nature and extent of Shipler's damages.

Rule

The court applied principles of negligence and strict liability, determining that contributory negligence does not apply in strict liability actions and that jury instructions must accurately reflect the law and the issues presented.

The court directed the jury that before Shipler could recover against GM, she must prove either negligence or strict liability.

Analysis

The court found that the jury instructions allowed for a fair consideration of the evidence, permitting the jury to determine liability based on either negligence or strict liability. The court ruled that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of contributory negligence or in admitting evidence of similar accidents, as these were relevant to the case's context. The jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and the damages awarded were not deemed excessive.

GM has not shown that the instructions were prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of GM. It has not demonstrated any prejudice from the jury instructions given.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury instructions were appropriate and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.

We conclude there were only three verdict forms that the jury could properly consider.

Who won?

Penny Shipler prevailed in the case as the jury found in her favor, awarding her significant damages based on the evidence presented regarding the vehicle's design defects and the circumstances of the accident.

The jury returned a verdict for Shipler and against GM and Long, and awarded her damages of $19,562,000.

You must be