IndexThe Liability Issues SwitchTortThe ProblemThis is the Timeline 2001: The Switch In 2001 we are still talking about the switch that caused many heartbreaks and saved some lives in 2018 General Motors brands had a defect on the ignition switch on several models, including the Cobalt. According to Consumer Safety.org "These malfunctions lead to a series of accidents that have caused at least 124 deaths and nearly 300 injuries." The General Motors switch has a small spring called a detent plunger. The stop plunger connects to a piece of plastic when you turn the ignition. It's a bit like a pen pushing in. Once pushed in you switch to accessories mode, which allows you to listen to music, turn on the lights, etc... If the switch is hit or the car goes into a bump the car will turn off and go into that accessory mode. If you are driving down the road and go over a bump, your car will stall and lose power, you will lose all power from the steering wheel and brakes. At some point the stop plunger was changed from the 2005 model to a newer version, which was 15% longer than the previous model. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In 2010, Brooke Melton's family advocated on her behalf to find out what really happened that day when her car veered into traffic, tragically ending her life. One father's determination was the start to unlocking many other cases that were settled out of court and kept quiet with very little compensation for the families who died due to the faulty ignition switch. Brooke's father hired an expert to investigate the car and that's where some secrets were hidden in his car's computer. This computer told the expert that right before the impact it went from high speed to zero very quickly. This told the mechanic that something was faulty. Many of the reasons for the out-of-court settlements were because lawyers were afraid of going up against a large company like GM. Only in 2014 did GM begin recalling the vehicles. The following are the negligence statues in Connecticut where the accident occurred.Sec. 52-572 hours. Negligent actions. Applicable doctrines. Liability of multiple 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, rehabilitative benefits, custodial care, and loss of earnings or earning capacity excluding any non-economic damages; (2) “noneconomic damages” means compensation as determined by the trier of fact for all noneconomic losses including, but not limited to, physical pain and suffering and mental and emotional suffering; (3) "compensatable economic damages" means economic damages reduced by any applicable assessment, including but not limited to set-offs, credits, comparative negligence, additur, and remittitur, and any reduction provided by section 52-225a; (4) “compensatable noneconomic damages” means noneconomic damages reduced by any applicable assessment, including but not limited to setoffs, credits, comparative negligence, additur, and remittitur. In causes of action based on negligence, contributory negligence does not bar recovery in an action by any person or his or her legal representative to recover damages resulting from personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage if the negligence it wasn'tgreater than the combined negligence of the person or persons against whom relief is sought, including persons established or released under subsection (n) of this section. Allowable economic or non-economic damages shall be reduced in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the person recovering, which percentage shall be determined pursuant to subsection (f) of this section. Action for negligence for damages arising from personal injury, wrongful death negligence or property damage occurring on or after October 1, 1987, if the damages are deemed to have been proximately caused by the negligence of more than one party, each party against whom recovery is permitted shall be liable to the claimant only for the such party's proportionate share of compensable economic damages and compensable noneconomic damages, except as provided in subsection (g) of this section. The proportionate share of damages for which each party is responsible is calculated by multiplying the compensable economic damages and compensable noneconomic damages by a fraction where the numerator is the party's percentage of negligence, which percentage shall be determined pursuant to subsection (f) of this section, and the denominator is the total of the negligent percentages, which percentages shall be determined pursuant to subsection (f) of this section, to be attributable to all parties whose negligent actions were a proximate cause of injury, death or damage to property, including persons established or released pursuant to subsection (n) of this section. Any percentage of negligence attributable to the claimant will not be included in the denominator of the fraction. In any action to which this section applies, the instructions given to the jury by the court will include an explanation of the effect on awards and liabilities of the percentage of negligence found by the jury to be attributable to each party. The jury or, in the absence of a jury, the court will specify: (1) The amount of economic damages; (2) the amount of noneconomic damages; (3) any findings of fact necessary for the court to specify recoverable economic damages and recoverable noneconomic damages; (4) the percentage of negligence that proximately caused the injury, death, or property damage in relation to one hundred percent, which is attributable to each party whose negligent actions were a proximate cause of the injury, death or damage to property, including those liquidated or persons released pursuant to subsection (n) of this section; and (5) the percentage of such negligence attributable to the plaintiff. Upon request of the appellant to unseal the entered judgment, after good faith efforts by the appellant to recover from a responsible defendant, no later than one year after the judgment becomes final due to lapse of time or exhaustion of the appeal, to depending on which event occurs next, the court will determine whether all or part of a defendant's pro rata share of recoverable economic damages and recoverable noneconomic damages is uncollectible by that party, and will redistribute that uncollectible amount among the other defendants in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. (2) The court shall order that that portion of such uncollectible amount representing compensable noneconomic damages shall be redistributed among the other defendants according to their percentages of negligence, provided that the court shall not redistribute to any such defendant an amount in excess of the percentage of that negligence defendant multiplied by that bad debt amount. (3) The court shall order that portion of such uncollectible amount representing economic losscompensable is redistributed among the other defendants. The court shall redistribute to any other defendant an amount equal to the uncollectible amount of recoverable economic damages multiplied by a fraction where the numerator is such defendant's percentage of negligence and the denominator is the total of the percentages of negligence of all defendants, excluding any defendant whose liability is reassigned. (4) The defendant whose liability is reassigned is nevertheless subject to contribution under subsection (h) of this section and to any continuing liability to the appellant under the judgment. A right of contribution exists in the parties who under subsection (g) of this section are required to pay more than their pro rata share of such judgment. Total recovery by a party seeking contribution will be limited to the amount paid by such party in excess of that party's pro rata share of such judgment. An action for contribution must be brought within two years after the party seeking contribution has made the final payment in excess of that party's pro rata share of the claim. This section shall not limit or affect any rights of subrogation arising out of any other relationship. This section will not affect any right to compensation under applicable law. Where an indemnitor is entitled to indemnification from another, the indemnitee's right is to indemnification and not to contribution, and the indemnitor is not entitled to contribution from the indemnitee towards any part of that indemnification obligation. This section does not apply to breaches of trust or other fiduciary duty. The legal doctrines of last clear chance and assumption of risk in actions to which this section applies are abolished. The family car doctrine shall not be applied to impute contributory contributions or comparative negligence under this section against the owner of any motor vehicle or motor vessel. A release, settlement or similar agreement between a claimant and a person releases that person from all liability for the contribution, but does not release other people from liability for the same loss unless they so provide. However, the total award of damages is reduced by the amount of the released person's percentage of negligence determined in accordance with subsection (f) of this section. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, there will be no apportionment of liability. or damages between parties liable in negligence and parties liable on any basis other than negligence, including, but not limited to, intentional, wanton or reckless misconduct, strict liability, or liability under any cause of action created by law, except such liability may be apportioned between negligently liable parties in any cause of action created by law based on negligence including, but not limited to, an action for wrongful death under section 52-555 or an action for injury caused by a State-owned motor vehicle pursuant to section 52-556. History: PA 82-160 redrafted the section and added the subsection. (d) concerns the family car doctrine, pursuant to Sec. 52-572i; PA 86-338 added provisions relating to the definition of economic and non-economic damages, the limitation of a person's liability to his or her proportionate share of recoverable damages, the calculation of each person's proportionate share of damages, the redistribution of a bad amount of damages among other responsible parties, the establishment and exercise of a right of conferral, the effect ofprovisions of the section on any right of subrogation or indemnity and the applicability of the provisions of the section to breaches of trust or other fiduciary duty; PA 87-227 substantially revised and rewrote the section to include, among other things, revising definitions, replacing “person” with “party” throughout the section, making the section applicable to property damage actions occurring in on or after October 1, 1987, including those settled or persons released in assigning percentages of negligence, requiring the jury or court to specify any findings of fact necessary for the court to specify recoverable economic damages and recoverable noneconomic damages, revising the method to redistribute an amount of bad damages so that all compensable economic damages are redistributed among other defendants and the claimant is fully compensated for such compensable economic damages, provided that total recovery by a party seeking contribution is limited to the amount paid by such party in excess of such party's pro rata share of the judgment, in lieu of the provisions relating to the time at which a contribution action must be brought depending on whether or not a judgment has been rendered with the requirement to bring an action for the contribution within two years after the party requesting the contribution has made the final payment in excess of his pro rata share of the claim and adding the subsection. (n) regarding the effects of a release, settlement or similar agreement on liability and total damages; PA 88-364 made a technical change in the subsection. (G); PA 99-69 added subsection. (o) prohibit the apportionment of liability or damages between parties liable for negligence and parties liable on any basis other than negligence and make technical changes 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 adding a person as a defendant for purposes of apportioning liability. See Section. 52-225a regarding economic damages reduction for personal injury and wrongful death actions for collateral source payments. See Sec. 52-225d relating to lump sum damages and periodic installments in personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage actions. Cited. 170 C. 495, 516 (Diss. Op.). Quoted. 175 C. 112, 115. The section did not repeal the common law rule against conferring between accomplices, relating only to the modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence and the doctrines of abolition, last clear chance, and assumption of risk. 176C.523-528. Cited 179 C. 372, 374-376; 181C.515, 516; id., 650, 652. Cited. 182 C. 236, 237, 239, 241. Cited. 183 C. 473, 476. Cit. 184 C. 205, 212. Cit. 187 C. 339, 341. Cit. 188 C. 607, 615. Cit. 189 C. 601, 605. Cit. 190 C. 791, 797. Cited. 194 C. 645, 646. Cit. 196 C. 341, 353. Cit. 203 C. 607, 611. Cit. 205 C. 694, 702. PA 86-338 cited. 214 C. 1, 6, 7. Cit. 222 C. 775, 781, 782. Cited. 228 C. 441, 455. Cit. 231 C. 77-79, 89. Cit. 232 C. 559, 560, 583, 584, 586. Cited. 234 C. 660, 661, 664, 665, 668-670. Quoted. 235 C. 107, 120, 121. Cit. 236 C. 625, 634. Cit. Id., 670, 673. Cited. 239 C. 798. Cited. 240 C. 694. Cited. 241 C. 399. Cit. 242 C. 169. The plain language of the section provides that only negligent persons may be sued by the defendant for apportionment of liability and, therefore, a person whose conduct was reckless, willful and wanton is not liable under this section and cannot be added for distribution purposes. 246 C. 223. The Supreme Court has extended thissection as a matter of common law to allow apportionment between a negligent liable party and an intentional liable party. Id. The principles of apportionment set forth in the section do not apply where the apportionment claim rests on grounds other than negligence, including strict liability, of which products liability is merely one form. 253 C. 787. With the enactment of PA 99-69, Sec. 1(o), the legislature merely clarified sections 52-572h to exclude a common law right to apportionment between a negligent and intentional tortfeasor. 263 C. 358. Because the laws permit apportionment among negligent defendants and because Connecticut is a comparative negligence jurisdiction, as indicated by Sec. 52-572o, the simplest and least confusing approach to cases in which the jury must determine which, among many, causes contributed to the plaintiff's injury is to formulate the analysis in the proximate cause rather than allowing defendants to raise a defense of the substitute cause. Id., 424.Cited. 6 CA 383, 389. Cited. 11 CA 1, 7. Cit. 14 CA 561, 569. Cited. 15 CA 392, 397, 401. Cit. 26 CA 509, 511-514. Cit. 30 CA 327, 332. Cited. 33 CA 714, 717, 719, 720, 722. Cited. 37 CA 515, 523. Cit. 41 CA 61-63, 65. Cited. Id., 856, 860. Cited. 46 CA 18. The entry into force of the law did not make the general ruling rule inapplicable. 53 CA 399. The district 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 automobile accidents, the jury may make an apportionment approximate and, if he is unable to do so, he must equally divide the damage between each of the parties whose negligent actions caused damage to the claimant. 57 CA 134. Tort Liability Issues Administrative agency regulations help prevent people from violating statues. This is to protect situations such as property, boundaries and products sold. Tort liabilities are strict products liability for the commercial sale of defective products. In most states, any retailer, wholesaler, or manufacturer that sells an unreasonably dangerous defective product that causes injury to a user on the job or malfunctions will cost them a pretty penny. The other non-contractual liability is design defect. The manufacturer is designed according to the standards, but the product hurts the user due to its unsafe design. Lack of adequate testing inherently creates a dangerous product and can even be considered a design flaw. The stop plunger was neither long enough nor wide enough. (Pagnattaro, pg301) In the article Revisiting Connecticut's Standard for Product Liability Design Defect Claims (Miller Eric internet) the design defect is the missing link sometimes in these cases. The problem The ignition switch does not lock as it should when the key is turned from accessory mode to start mode. When you turn the key it turns, but staying in that mode is the real problem. When this happens, the key will turn off the engine and the driver will lose control. The locking plunger was not long or wide enough to keep it in the slot. General Motors was aware of the situation and decided not to do anything about it. General Motors decided to ignore it. This could have saved their company and many lives. This is the timeline 2001: GM detects defect during pre-production testing of the Saturn Ion. 2003: A service technician closes an investigation into a stalled Saturn Ion after changing the key fob and noting that the problem has been resolved. 2004: GM acknowledges