GM held not liable for Derrick Thomas' death

[albionmoonlight]

Since yesterday I posted in opposition to those bemoaning frivlous lawsuits, I figured that I would provide equal time today. I had no idea that this suit was even going on.


http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/3660399/detail.html
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Jurors decided Tuesday that General Motors was not at fault in the death of former Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Derrick Thomas.

The jury ruled 10 to 2 that Thomas' family was not entitled to any money from the automaker.

Thomas died from injuries he sustained in a wreck in January 2000.

His mother, Edith Morgan, his seven children and their five mothers filed the lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that a defective design on Thomas' Chevrolet Suburban led to his death.

During closing arguments Monday, GM's attorneys said Thomas broke his back after being ejected from his Suburban. They said Thomas was speeding in icy conditions and not wearing his seat belt, and his injuries were not the result of the roof caving in, as the plaintiffs' attorneys have argued.

"He was driving faster than anyone else on the road, and he was cutting in and out of traffic. There is no question about that," GM attorney John Hickey said Monday.

Hickey urged jurors not to award the family any money.

He said the ruling vindicated his client and the Chevrolet Suburban, and it sends a message to others that they should wear seat belts and drive safely.

"All we wanted to do is defend our car," Hickey said. "I feel bad for the Thomases. Mr. Thomas, unfortunately, was driving too fast."

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Piuze, had asked the Jackson County jury to order GM to pay $75 million in the wrongful death lawsuit. In closing arguments, Piuze reminded the jury that sports agent Lee Steinberg said Thomas would have made $43 million before retiring from the NFL.

Jurors received the case Monday evening and returned the verdict at 12:30 p.m. the next day.

Morgan, who started the "Buckle Up for Derrick" campaign soon after her son's death to urge Kansas City motorists to wear seat belts, said her family would survive.

"We're going to be strong and fight the good fight of faith," she said. "It has been very, very tough to relive these incidents all over again. Even if they would have awarded something, it couldn't have taken the place of my son."

Piuze said the jury's decision was not surprising.

"The problem with this case is that in the last four years since he got hurt, there has been an awful lot of publicity that Derrick Thomas was at fault, that Derrick Thomas was not wearing a seat belt," Piuze said.

Todd Beverlin, of Lee's Summit, who was one of two jurors who voted to award damages, said he didn't buy the automaker's argument that Thomas was flung from the vehicle before the roof caved in.

In a civil trial, at least nine of the 12 jurors must agree on a verdict. The vote Tuesday against awarding damages was 10-2.

"I felt actually that he couldn't have been ejected from the vehicle where (GM) said he was ejected," said Beverlin, a Kansas City Chiefs season ticket-holder. "I thought he was ejected on the second roll."

Beverlin said he was shocked four years ago when he heard about the crash that injured Thomas, but being a Chiefs fan did not influence his belief that Thomas' family should receive compensation from General Motors.

Barb Schnepf, of rural Lee's Summit, who also sided with the plaintiffs, said GM should have been held liable.

"I believe that Derrick Thomas was injured inside the vehicle," Schnepf said. "I believe GM knew its roofs were not crash worthy, from the late '60s to early '70s, and did nothing to correct the problem."

The jurors who voted against awarding damages avoided reporters as they left the courthouse.

[Samdari]

" his seven children and their five mothers "

Wow

[JeeberD]

White text on a white background is brutal...

[Ksyrup]

Wow. Thanks for pointing that out. I was using one of those special markers on the screen to decode the message, but it wasn't working. Highlighting the text is much easier!

[rkmsuf]

I thought it said "drink your Ovaltine."

[Fritz]

I dont care if the car roof was made of paper. I fail to see how Thomas death would be GMs fault.

In the future they may put a little sticker on the inside that says "please do not crash this vehicle or drive it upside down."

[Ksyrup]

"The problem with this case is that in the last four years since he got hurt, there has been an awful lot of publicity that Derrick Thomas was at fault, that Derrick Thomas was not wearing a seat belt," Piuze said.



I agree. Typically, the existence of facts that hurt your case is considered a "problem."

[albionmoonlight]

In the future they may put a little sticker on the inside that says "please do not crash this vehicle or drive it upside down."
Heck, I'd settle for

"Don't speed and drive recklessly while not wearing your seatbelt on an icy road."

[Franklinnoble]

" his seven children and their five mothers "

Wow
Yeah, I had to re-read that... I thought for a second there might have been a typo.

[sabotai]

This is the problem with jurors (and people in general). They beleive they are more of an expert on things than the experts.


"I felt actually that he couldn't have been ejected from the vehicle where (GM) said he was ejected," said Beverlin, a Kansas City Chiefs season ticket-holder. "I thought he was ejected on the second roll."


Uh-huh...and how could you possibly have come to this conclusion without being an expert in automobile accidents?


"I believe that Derrick Thomas was injured inside the vehicle," Schnepf said. "I believe GM knew its roofs were not crash worthy, from the late '60s to early '70s, and did nothing to correct the problem."


But does the evidence provided in the case support your beleif? Or did you just ignore everything in this case and just vote based on a beleif you had prior to the case?

I hate people.

[cthomer5000]

sab,

I was going to post something similar earlier... it's pretty maddening, really.

[Glengoyne]

" his seven children and their five mothers "

Wow
What?! I thought he was a professional football player, not basketball.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

The sad part (other than Thomas' death, of course) is that two jurors actually wanted to hold GM at fault!

Let's see...

It's snowing.

You're speeding.

You're not wearing a seat belt.

The guy in the truck wearing a seat belt was fine.

I don't know how any sane human could find GM at fault here. Of course that's not taking into account the sanity of a Chefs fan...

A friend of mine's wife is an insane Chefs fan who absolutely loved D.T.

I posed this question to her: If you could change history and allow Derrick Thomas to live thru the accident, rehab, then courageously take the field again, would you?

She said that absolutely she would. She loved him.

I then said : What is the only team that would take a chance on him was the Raiders, and he became Super Bowl MVP?

Her answer after a long pause was "Well since you can't change history..."

Chefs fans seem to believe that if you wear red, you can do no wrong.


Great googley moogly...


On the other hand, Jerome Brown was killed because GM was at fault. If we remember, he wrapped his 'Vette around a pole after the airbag went off when he hit a pothole.

[kcchief19]

Yeah, it doesn't help your case when the two people not wearing their seat belts were ejected from the car and died but they guy wearing his seat belt walked away with a few bruises.

Of course, I don't understand the logic that says the roof caved in and caused his injuries. If they roof caved in that much, wouldn't it have blocked him from being ejected from the vehicle?

I love the fact that a Chiefs season-ticket holder got on the jury and voted for the plaintiffs. Surprise!

[yabanci]

This is the problem with jurors (and people in general). They beleive they are more of an expert on things than the experts.

"I felt actually that he couldn't have been ejected from the vehicle where (GM) said he was ejected," said Beverlin, a Kansas City Chiefs season ticket-holder. "I thought he was ejected on the second roll."

Uh-huh...and how could you possibly have come to this conclusion without being an expert in automobile accidents?"

He was a juror and listened to weeks of expert testimony on the issue. He made conclusions of fact based on the evidence presented to the jury, which is what jurors are supposed to do.

"I believe that Derrick Thomas was injured inside the vehicle," Schnepf said. "I believe GM knew its roofs were not crash worthy, from the late '60s to early '70s, and did nothing to correct the problem."

But does the evidence provided in the case support your beleif? Or did you just ignore everything in this case and just vote based on a beleif you had prior to the case?

I hate people.

Yes, that was the evidence presented by the plaintff. He didn't pull it out of thin air, and other juries in different cases have reached the same conclusion as this juror did.

The way these cases are tried is each side puts on a plethora of experts to explain how the crash happened and what caused the injuries. This guy and one other juror sided with the plaintiff's experts, the rest sided with the defense experts, resulting in a defense verdict.

If you don't like the jurors making conclusions of fact, who would you rather have making them? Experts in the pockets of the auto industry? Experts in the pockets of plaintiffs' lawyers? Some government expert appointed by politicians whose pockets are lined by interested parties' campaign contributions? If not jurors, then who do you propose?

Sorry, but I just don't see the rational of blasting a juror who has sat through a trial listening to weeks of testimony by a dozen or more experts as being completely unqualified to make these conclusions, especially while people here feel they are qualified to make conclusions on the same issues based on reading a single newspaper article.

[sabotai]

He made conclusions of fact based on the evidence presented to the jury, which is what jurors are supposed to do.

Yes, he is supposed to do that. I could have sworn that was the point I was making...

The way these cases are tried is each side puts on a plethora of experts to explain how the crash happened and what caused the injuries. This guy and one other juror sided with the plaintiff's experts, the rest sided with the defense experts, resulting in a defense verdict.

Wow. I had no idea that went on at trial nor did I know that it was a 10-2 decision for the defense. Thank you so much for pointing that out.

If you don't like the jurors making conclusions of fact, who would you rather have making them? Experts in the pockets of the auto industry? Experts in the pockets of plaintiffs' lawyers? Some government expert appointed by politicians whose pockets are lined by interested parties' campaign contributions? If not jurors, then who do you propose?

At no time did I imply that we needed a different system. All systems, including ours, have weaknesses. This just happens to be a weakness. No system is perfect and I realize ours is far better than many other countries. Don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry, but I just don't see the rational of blasting a juror who has sat through a trial listening to weeks of testimony by a dozen or more experts as being completely unqualified to make these conclusions, especially while people here feel they are qualified to make conclusions on the same issues based on reading a single newspaper article.

I was just questioning if he was using what was presented to him or basing it on preexisting beleifs. I wasn't so much "bashing him" as I was just using him as an example of something that seems to be happening for more oftan than it should.

[sachmo71]

A view from Stella:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Stella Awards #54: 18 August 2004 www.StellaAwards.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

END RUN
by Randy Cassingham

Derrick Thomas of the Kansas City Chiefs football team was good. As a linebacker, he helped the team win plenty of games, and was well on his way to smashing various records. In his first year with the Chiefs, for instance, he sacked opposing quarterbacks 10 times. In his second year, he doubled that number. When asked how he did it, he'd simply reply with a smile, "Speed kills."

As a person, he gave a lot back to his community. Chiefs president Carl Peterson remembers how Thomas would collect money each year for food drives for the needy. "He would go around the locker room and demand money from his teammates -- at least $100, usually more," Peterson says. "Then he'd come into my office and say, 'What will the Chiefs do to match this?' We'd negotiate, because he loved to negotiate, and we'd decide on how much the Chiefs were going to give. And then he'd say, 'OK, Father, we know what the Chiefs are going to do. Now, what are you going to do?'"

Peterson calls Thomas "the son I never had."

A quick annual holiday fundraiser wasn't all, of course. Thomas' father had been killed in Viet Nam, so he knew the pain of being fatherless. He spent lots of time with kids, helping them learn how to read so that they, too, could break out of the inner city and get to a better life.

Once, during a game against Denver, Thomas got angry, "blowing up" during the game, and was suspended. Rather than blame others, he held a press conference and addressed "the youth of America who look up to Derrick Thomas" and urged them not to make the same mistake he did. The kind of role model sports stars should be, but often aren't.

In January 2000, Thomas was driving in his car, a large Suburban SUV, on Interstate 435 in a Kansas City snow storm. There were ice patches on the road. Witnesses say he was driving too fast. Thomas lost control and rolled. His friend and assistant, Michael Tellis, was thrown out of the vehicle and killed. Thomas was thrown out, landed in oncoming traffic lanes, and left partly paralyzed. Neither had been wearing a seat belt; a third passenger in the back seat was wearing a seat belt and suffered only minor injuries.

In the hospital, Thomas was making progress toward recovery. Two weeks after the accident, however, a blood clot killed him. He was just 33.

"Damnit, D, you had it all, man," editorialized sportswriter Rick Dean. "If only you'd just slowed down a little!" Or had been wearing a seat belt.

Another good guy cut down in a senseless tragedy, perhaps complicated by risk-taking speeds and the lack of a seat belt. That's how everyone saw it. Everyone, that is, except his mother.

Edith Morgan, Thomas' mother, said her son died because his SUV's roof was not strong enough to take the weight of the massive vehicle when it rolled over. It collapsed 8-10", breaking his neck, she says. Morgan -- on behalf of herself, Thomas' estate, and the five mothers of his seven children -- sued General Motors, the SUV's manufacturer; the Metropolitan Ambulance Services Trust, the non-profit ambulance company that tried to save his life; and Royal Chevrolet of Harrison, Mo., the dealer that sold Thomas the vehicle.

The suit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court by attorney Gary C. Robb, claimed wrongful death. It said the vehicle's roof was defective and the ambulance workers were negligent. The dealer? Who knows what they did wrong by selling Thomas the vehicle he wanted.

During trial, several facts emerged:

-- The Suburban's vehicle class exempts it from federal roof crush
standards. However, Suburbans exceeded that standard anyway -- its
design, defense lawyers say, was thus obviously not "defective".

-- Accident reconstruction experts testified that Thomas was thrown out
of the vehicle's passenger window before the roof collapsed. He
couldn't have been thrown out after it collapsed, they said, since the
window opening would then have been too small for the linebacker to go
through it.

-- There was no blood or other evidence that Thomas' neck was broken
inside the vehicle by the collapsed roof. Defense experts say Thomas
broke his neck by tumbling along the highway for 50 feet after being
thrown from the vehicle.

-- A traffic engineer calculated that Thomas had been driving somewhere
between 63 and 73 mph when he lost control. The posted speed limit was
70 mph but, again, Thomas was driving in a snow storm on icy roads.
(Plaintiff attorney Michael Piuze countered that the expert he had
hired said Thomas was going at most 58 mph. As if that was a safe
speed.)


Before the trial started, the non-profit ambulance service settled for $100,000 and was dropped from the suit. The Chevy dealer that sold the SUV also settled; the amount it paid was not reported.

In closing arguments, Piuze, the family's trial attorney, pleaded with the jurors to remember Thomas' charity work. He reminded them of his children, asking "What's it like not to have a daddy?" Then, reporters say, "Almost whispering to the jury," he urged them to award at least $75 million, perhaps more than $100 million, in damages, avoiding a top figure because "he did not want to put an upper limit on it."

Piuze is a bit of a specialist in rollover crash cases, having taken four of them to trial, three against GM. He won every one of them.

In response, General Motors' attorney John Hickey urged the jurors to consider personal responsibility. Thomas was going too fast and wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Evidence showed his neck was not broken by the collapsed roof -- the roof that actually exceeded federal standards, even though it was not required to even meet them. "General Motors did absolutely nothing wrong," he said. Rather, Thomas "was driving faster than anyone else on the road and cutting in and out of traffic," even in the face of worsening road conditions.

With that, the jurors started their deliberations.

-v-

There's the evidence. So how would you, as a member of the Court of Public Opinion, rule in the case? You can find either side 100 percent at fault, or assign a certain percentage of the blame to General Motors.

-v-

After deliberating for five hours over two days, the jury found Thomas was entirely at fault, not even finding GM partially responsible for his injuries and resulting death. The vote was 10-2 against his mother, Edith Morgan. (Missouri's constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the jury to decide civil trials, rather than a unanimous verdict.)

"The quality of the car made the jury open to what happened and maybe helped them put Thomas' celebrity status aside," said GM's attorney, John Hickey.

"I'm disappointed, because I felt so strongly about the rollovers," Morgan said. She said she would continue to press for improved roof strength standards.

Attorney Michael Piuze said pretrial publicity was at least in part to blame for the failed suit, in that many of the articles about Thomas' death noted he was driving too fast and not wearing a seat belt. He said the message of the case is: wear seat belts.

Bull! The message delivered loud and clear by the jury is that people need to be held responsible for their own actions, and they -- or their survivors -- don't deserve nine-figure windfalls when they drive like idiots, even if they are normally very nice people who worked hard to help others. Thomas killed himself accidentally -- and killed his friend. Why should General Motors be responsible for that? The obvious answer: they shouldn't.

Meanwhile, consider the ambulance company, which surely did nothing wrong. It either had to cough up $100,000 plus legal expenses, or its insurance company did. Who can blame them for not wanting to take the risk that a sympathetic jury would sock it to them in a case of a fallen home-town hero? But no matter who paid its gigantic bill to get dropped from the case, the non-profit organization certainly suffered a setback in its efforts to serve the citizens in and around Kansas City.

Thomas' death is a sad waste of his potential, both as a ball player and as a human. And the greedy struggle to hold someone else responsible for his actions was a similar, sad waste.

It took four and a half years after the accident to get the case concluded.


SOURCES:
1) "Days of Testimony Detail Seconds of Fatal Crash", Kansas City Star,
12 August 2004
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect4.pl?54a

2) "Jury Deliberates Thomas Lawsuit", Kansas City Star, 17 August 2004
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect4.pl?54b

3) "GM Prevails in Thomas Family Suit", Kansas City Star, 18 August 2004
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect4.pl?54c

4) Various background articles from the "Chief Zone", produced by the
Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper.
http://www.chiefzone.com



I'm really glad they went after the ambulance company and the dealership. Bastards must pay!

[stevew]

A view from Stella:




I'm really glad they went after the ambulance company and the dealership. Bastards must pay!

Speaking of bastardshis seven children and their five mothers
this dude left a lot of them behind.