Table of ContentsLiability Issues SwitchTortThe ProblemHere's the Timeline 2001: The Switch In 2001, the switch that caused much heartache and saved lives is still being talked about in 2018. The General Motors brands had a defect on the ignition switch on several models including the Cobalt. According to Consumer Safety.org, "these malfunctions have led to a number of accidents that have caused at least 124 deaths and nearly 300 injuries." The General Motors switch has a small spring called a detent piston. This trigger piston connects to a plastic part when the ignition is turned on. It's a bit like a pen that sinks. Once pressed, you go from accessory mode, which allows you to listen to music, turn on the lights, etc. If the switch hits or if the car rolls over a bump, the car would turn off and pass in accessory mode. If you are driving on a road and you go over a bump your car will stop and lose power, you will lose all power to the steering wheel and brakes. At some point the trigger piston was replaced in the 2005 model with a newer version, 15% longer than the older model. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essayIn 2010, Brooke Melton's family pleaded on her behalf to find out what really happened that day, his car veered into oncoming traffic, tragically ending his life. . One father's determination was the starting point for unlocking several other cases that were settled out of court and kept quiet with very little compensation for families who died due to a faulty ignition switch. Brooke's father hired an expert to investigate the car and that's where some secrets were hiding in his car's computer. This computer told the expert that just before impact, it went from high speed to zero very quickly. This told the mechanic that something was wrong. Much of the reason for out-of-court settlements was because lawyers were afraid of taking on a huge company like GM. It wasn't until 2014 that Gm began recalling vehicles. Here are the negligence statues in Connecticut where the accident occurred.Sec. 52-572h. Negligent actions. Applicable doctrines. Liability of several tortfeasors for damages. (a) For purposes of this section: (1) "Economic damages" means compensation as determined by the trier of fact for pecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, the cost of reasonable and necessary medical care. , rehabilitation services, custodial care and loss of income or earning capacity excluding any non-economic damages; (2) “non-economic damages” means compensation determined by the trier of fact for all non-pecuniary losses, including, but not limited to, physical pain and suffering and mental and emotional suffering; (3) "Recoverable economic damages" means economic damages reduced by any applicable findings, including, but not limited to, offsets, credits, comparative negligence, additions and discounts, and any reductions provided by the Article 52-225a; (4) “Recoverable non-economic damages” means non-economic damages reduced by any applicable findings, including, but not limited to, offsets, credits, comparative negligence, addition and remission. In causes of action based on negligence, contributory negligence will not bar recovery in an actionbrought by any person or his legal representative to recover damages resulting from personal injury, wrongful death or property damage if the negligence was not greater than the combined negligence of the person or persons against whom the recovery is requested, including persons established or released under paragraph (n) of this section. Allowable economic or non-economic damages shall be reduced in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the recovering person, which percentage shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.negligent action to recover damages resulting from personal injury, d 'wrongful death or property damage occurring on or after October 1, 1987, if the damage is determined to be caused proximately by the negligence of more than one party, each party against whom relief is authorized shall not be liable to the plaintiff only for that portion's proportionate share of recoverable economic damages and recoverable noneconomic damages, except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section. The proportionate share of damages for which each party is liable is calculated by multiplying the recoverable economic damages and recoverable non-economic damages by a fraction in which the numerator is the party's negligence percentage, which percentage shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (f). ) of this section, and the denominator is the total of the negligence percentages, which percentages shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, to be attributable to all parties whose negligent actions were a proximate cause of injury, death or property damage, including persons installed or discharged under paragraph (n) of this section. Any percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff should not be included in the denominator of the fraction. In any action to which this section applies, the court's instructions to the jury shall include an explanation of the effect on awards and liabilities of the percentage of negligence which the jury finds attributable to each party. The jury or, if there is no jury, the court will specify: (1) the amount of the economic loss; (2) the amount of non-economic damages; (3) any findings of fact necessary for the court to specify recoverable economic damages and recoverable noneconomic damages; (4) the percentage of negligence which proximately caused the injury, death or property damage compared to one hundred percent, which is attributable to each party whose negligent acts were a proximate cause of the injury, death or damage material, including settled damages. or persons released under paragraph (n) of this section; and (5) the percentage of such negligence attributable to the plaintiff. Upon request by the plaintiff to open the filed judgment, after good faith efforts by the plaintiff to collect from a responsible defendant, no later than one year after the judgment becomes final for forfeiture. of time or by exhaustion of appeals, whichever is later, the court will determine whether all or part of a defendant's proportionate share of recoverable economic damages and recoverable non-economic damages is irrecoverable from that party, and will reallocate this irrecoverable amount between the other defendants. in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. (2) The court shall order that the portion of such irrecoverable amount which represents recoverable non-economic damages be reallocated among the other defendants based on their negligence percentages, provided thatthe court shall not re-award to such defendant an amount greater than that defendant's percentage. of negligence multiplied by this irrecoverable amount. (3) The court shall order that portion of this unrecoverable amount that represents recoverable economic damages be redistributed among the other defendants. The court will reallocate to any other defendant an amount equal to the unrecoverable amount of recoverable economic damages multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is that defendant's negligence percentage and the denominator is the total of all defendants' negligence percentages, to the exclusion of any defendant whose liability is reallocated. (4) The defendant whose liability is reallocated is nevertheless subject to contribution pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section and to any continuing liability to the plaintiff under the judgment. A right of contribution exists in parties who, pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section are required to pay more than their proportionate share of this judgment. Total recovery by a party seeking contribution will be limited to the amount paid by that party in excess of that party's proportionate share in such judgment. An action for contribution must be brought within two years after the party seeking contribution has made final payment in excess of that party's proportionate share of the claim. This section will not limit or impair any right of subrogation arising from any other relationship. This article will not affect any right to compensation under applicable law. Where a tortfeasor is entitled to compensation from another, the indemnitee's right is to compensation and not to contribution, and the indemnitor is not entitled to contribution from the indemnitee for a any part of this indemnification obligation. This article does not apply to breach of trust. or other fiduciary duty. The legal doctrines of last obvious chance and assumption of risk in actions to which this article is applicable are abolished. The family car doctrine shall not be applied to impute contributory or comparative negligence under this section to the owner of any motor vehicle or motorboat. A release, settlement, or similar agreement between a claimant and a person releases that person from liability for contribution, but it does not relieve any other person from liability for the same claim unless it so provides. However, the total amount of damages is reduced by the amount of the released person's negligence percentage determined pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, there shall be no allocation of liability. or damages between negligent parties and liable parties on any basis other than negligence, including, but not limited to, intentional, wanton or reckless misconduct, strict liability or liability under any cause action created by statute, except that liability may be allocated among the negligent parties in any cause of action created by statute based on negligence, including, but not limited to, an action for death unjustified pursuant to section 52-555 or an action for injury caused by a state-owned motor vehicle pursuant to section 52-556.History: PA 82-160 reworded the section and added subsec. (d) regarding the family car doctrine, formerly Sec. 52-572i; PA 86-338 added provisions regarding the definition of economic and non-economic damages, the limitation of liability of aperson to his or her proportional share of the recoverable damages, the calculation of each person's proportional share of the damages, the reallocation of an irrecoverable amount of damages among other responsible parties, the establishment and exercise of a capital duty, the effect of the provisions of the section on any right of subrogation or indemnification and the applicability of the provisions of the section to abuses of trust or other fiduciary duties; PA 87-227 substantially revised and rewrote the section, including, among other things, revising definitions, replacing "person" with "party" throughout the section, making the section applicable to actions for damages to property occurring on or after October 1, 1987, including actions settled or discharged in awarding negligence percentages, require the jury or court to specify all findings of fact necessary for the court to specify economic damages recoverable damages and recoverable non-economic damages, revise the method of reallocating an irrecoverable amount of damages so that all economic recoverable damages are reallocated among other defendants and the plaintiff is fully compensated for such recoverable economic damages, provided that total recovery by a party seeking contribution is limited to the amount paid by that party in excess of its proportionate share of the judgment provisions relating to when an action for contribution must be brought depending on whether a judgment has been issued with the requirement that an action for contribution be brought within two years after the party seeking contribution makes the final payment in excess of its proportionate share of the claim and adding the Subsec. (n) regarding the effect of a release, settlement or similar agreement on liability and the total award of damages; PA 88-364 made a technical change to subsec. (g); PA 99-69 added subsec. (o) prohibit the allocation of liability or damages between negligent parties and liable parties on any basis other than negligence and technical modifications made for the purposes of gender neutrality, effective May 27, 1999, and applicable to any civil action pending or filed on or after August 11, 1998. See Sec. 52-102b regarding adding a person as a defendant for purposes of apportioning liability. See Sec. 52-225a regarding mitigation of economic damages for personal injury and wrongful death actions for collateral source payments. See Sec. 52-225d regarding the payment of damages in lump sum and periodic installments in actions for personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage. Cited. 170 C. 495, 516 (Op. Diss.). Quoted. 175 C. 112, 115. The article did not abrogate the common law rule prohibiting contribution between co-tortresses, related only to the modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence and the doctrines of abolition, of the last obvious chance and the assumption of risk. 176 C. 523-528. Quoted 179 C. 372, 374-376; 181 C. 515, 516; id., 650, 652. Quoted. 182 C. 236, 237, 239, 241. Quoted. 183 C. 473, 476. Quoted. 184 C. 205, 212. Quoted. 187 C. 339, 341. Quoted. 188 C. 607, 615. Quoted. 189 C. 601, 605. Quoted. 190 C. 791, 797. Quoted. 194 C. 645, 646. Quoted. 196 C. 341, 353. Quoted. 203 C. 607, 611. Quoted. 205 C. 694, 702. PA 86-338 cited. 214 C. 1, 6, 7. Quoted. 222 C. 775, 781, 782. Quoted. 228 C. 441, 455. Quoted. 231 C. 77-79, 89. Quoted. 232 C. 559, 560, 583, 584, 586. Quoted. 234 C. 660, 661, 664, 665, 668-670. Quoted. 235 C. 107, 120, 121. Quoted. 236 C. 625, 634. Quoted. Id., 670, 673. Quoted. 239 C. 798. Cited. 240 C. 694. Cited. 241 C.399. Quoted. 242 C. 169. The plain language of the article provides that only negligent persons may be cited by the defendant for purposes of allocating liability and, therefore, a person whose conduct was reckless, willful and wanton is not not liable under this article and cannot be added. for distribution purposes. 246 C. 223. The Supreme Court extended this section as a matter of common law to permit the division between a negligent and an intentional tortfeasor. Identifier. The article's apportionment principles do not apply where the apportionment claim is based on a basis other than negligence, including strict liability, of which product liability is only one form. 253 C. 787. In enacting PA 99-69, Sec. 1(o), the Legislature simply clarified sections 52-572h to exclude a common law right to apportionment between a negligent and intentional tortfeasor. 263 C. 358. Because the statutes permit allocation among negligent defendants and because Connecticut is a comparative negligence jurisdiction, as stated in the section. 52-572o, the simplest and least confusing approach to cases where the jury must determine which of many causes contributed to the plaintiff's injury is to frame the analysis in terms of the proximate cause rather than to allow the defendants to invoke a primary defense of cause. Id., 424. Quoted. 6 CA 383, 389. Quoted. 11 CA 1, 7. Quoted. 14 CA 561, 569. Cited. 15 CA 392, 397, 401. Cited. 26 CA 509, 511-514. Quoted. 30 CA 327, 332. Quoted. 33 CA 714, 717, 719, 720, 722. Cited. 37 CA 515, 523. Quoted. 41 CA 61-63, 65. Quoted. Id., 856, 860. Quoted. 46 CA 18. The promulgation of the law did not render the general rule of verdict inapplicable. 53 CA 399. The trial court should instruct the jury that if it is unable to determine how much of the plaintiff's damages are attributable to each of the three tortfeasors arising from separate motor vehicle accidents, the jury may do an approximate allocation and if unable to do so, the jury must divide the damages equally between each party whose negligent actions caused injury to the plaintiff. 57 CA 134. Tort Issues Administrative agency regulations help prevent people from violating statutes. This is to protect situations such as ownership, boundaries and products sold. Torts are strict product liability for the commercial sale of defective products. In most states, any retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer who sells an excessively dangerous defective product that causes injury to a user on the job or malfunctions will cost them a considerable amount of money. The other tort is design defect. The design was made by the manufacturer according to standards, but the product injures a user due to its unsafe design. Lack of adequate testing inherently creates an unsafe product, which can also be considered a design flaw. The trigger piston was neither long nor wide enough. (Pagnattaro, p. 301) In the article Revisiting Connecticut's Standard for Product Liability Design Defect Claims (Miller Eric Internet), the design defect is sometimes the missing link in these cases. The key switches from accessory mode to start mode. When the key is turned, it turns, but staying in this mode is the real problem. When this happens, the key turns off the engine and the driver loses control. The trigger piston was not long or wide enough to hold it in the slot. General Motors was aware of the situation and decided to do nothing.