Products Liability Law Reporter

George Gianos was operating a 1994 Lexus LS400 on an interstate highway with his wife as a passenger. Both were wearing their seatbelts. When Gianos lost the ability to control the speed of his vehicle, he exited the interstate. He then struck a support column at a gas station, suffering fatal injuries after his air bag failed to deploy and his seatbelt pretensioner failed to fire. Gianos, a business owner, is survived by his wife and their two daughters.

Gianos’s estate sued Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Eskridge Lexus of Oklahoma City, Eskridge Inc., Eskridge Auto Group, Inc., and Eskridge Imports, Inc. Suit alleged negligent manufacture and design, failure to adequately inspect, and breach of warranty. The plaintiff asserted that the car’s safety restraint system was defective in that the car’s sensor wires for air bags and seatbelt pretensioners were routed through the wheel wells, making them vulnerable to damage from roadway hazards. Suit claimed that Toyota made the deliberate decision to disable all air bags and seatbelt pretensioners in the event any wire to any sensor was damaged, despite it being technologically feasible to leave the undamaged sensors operable. Here, the plaintiff argued, one of three sensors controlling Gianos’s air bag and pretensioner was damaged before impact.

The jury awarded $17 million plus interest.

Citation: Britt v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. CJ-2019-6304 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty. Nov. 21, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Richard L. Denney, Lydia J. Barrett, and Jason E. Robinson, and Russell T. Bowlan, all of Norman, Okla.; and AAJ members Larry A. Tawwater, Darren M. Tawwater, and Piper E. John, all of Oklahoma City, Okla.

Comment: In Cohen v. Key Safety Sys., Inc., 2023 WL 4865612 (M.D. Fla. July 31, 2023), a plaintiff alleged claims for negligence and strict liability, asserting that a defect in the defendant’s air bag inflator led to her sister’s death in Israel. The defense moved to dismiss the action under forum non conveniens and argued that the plaintiff’s action should continue in Israel. In March 2023, a federal district court denied the defense motion. The court concluded that Israel could not exercise jurisdiction over the litigation and was not an available alternative forum. The defense moved to amend the order. Denying the motion, the district court found that a district court may certify an order for interlocutory appeal if the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, which includes a substantial doubt as to how a controlling legal issue should be decided. Citing case law, the court added that substantial grounds for difference of opinion might exist where an order rests on a legal premise that is difficult or of first impression, on which district courts are divided, or on which other circuit courts are divided. Here, the court said that the March order applies binding precedent, and the order is compatible with other decisions resolving the availability of other foreign countries. Thus, the court concluded, no substantial ground for a difference of opinion existed in the case. AAJ members John D. O’Neill, Kevin R. Dean, T. David Hoyle, and W. Christopher Swett, all of Mount Pleasant, S.C.; and AAJ member Marc J. Rothenberg, New York City, represented the plaintiff.