“The accident had nothing to do with the ignition switch”.
Advertisement
A Texas jury has ruled an ignition switch in a General Motors auto was not to blame for a fatal 2011 crash, a media report said.
Jurors deliberated for less than an hour prior to returning an unanimous verdict for General Motors, said company representative Jim Cain. The company, on the other hand, said that it was Mr. Stevens reckless driving that caused accident, instead of the ignition switch.
Although the ignition switch of the vehicle could slip out of place, making it hard to steer, GM has fixed that issue.
In a closely watched case with others set to come to trial, a Texas jury found Thursday that an ignition switch in a 2007 Saturn Sky did not cause a 2011 crash that killed one person and injured another. Manslaughter charges initially filed against him were dropped after GM recalled 2.6m vehicles with the switch in 2014, according to his lawsuit.
The verdict in Harris County, Texas, was the 2nd in favor of General Motors this year in lawsuits regarding the now recalled ignition switch.
They also showed the jury that the key Stevens’ lawyer presented as evidence was not the key that operated the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Davis said GM knew about the ignition switch problem but it “continued to put off a recall and people died because of it, families were hurt”.
In January, a trial in NY ended abruptly after the judge raised questions about the plaintiff’s truthfulness. This is the third case related to the defective ignition switches that the automaker has won this year.
The company paid almost $600 million to settle 399 claims made to a fund it established. GM’s fund rejected more than 90 percent of the 4,343 claims it received, according to figures the company released in December.
“I held my nose and I did my job”, said Walter Kimble, 58, one of the jurors. “I wanted so desperately to make that young man a millionaire”.
Stay on topic – This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand.
Advertisement
Share with Us – We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article, and smart, constructive criticism.
