Recalls and Class Action Verdicts: Tom v. General Motors Corp.

TOM v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

February 20, 1997

RESULT: A jury awarded economic damages of $ 250,000 and non-economic damages of $ 150,000.

STATE: California

SUMMARY: On January 18, 1994, a 37-year old PG&E garageman was seriously injured when the compressed natural gas tank mounted on the underbody of a GMC Sierra 3/4 ton pickup truck exploded during a normal refueling. The truck was designed to run only on compressed natural gas. The truck had 8,600 miles on it and was 1 1/2 years old.

General Motors in conjunction with the other defendants, designed, manufactured, and sold 2,600 pick-up trucks specially designed to run on compressed natural gas. Each pick-up truck had three compressed natural gas fuel tanks mounted underneath the pick-up bed. The trucks were sold primarily to utility companies. There was no coating on the outside of the tanks to protect them against any corrosion by environmental agents such as road salts, chemicals, etc.

Two weeks after the explosion that injured plaintiff, a fuel tank on another GMC truck exploded in Minneapolis, Minnesota also during refueling. Three weeks later, PG&E discovered a huge crack on another GMC fuel tank about ready to explode.

An extensive investigation done by various laboratories determined the explosion which injured plaintiff likely came about as a result of battery acid which had dripped on to the tank from the bed of the pick-up truck and gotten trapped against the bottom of the tank by a stone shield. The battery acid had come from automotive batteries which were carried in the back of the truck from time to time. The truck was used as a "garage shop" truck.

The Minneapolis explosion was also caused by an acidic solution, but the exact source of that solution was unknown.

At the end of March 1994, General Motors recalled all of the pick-up trucks, declaring that there was a defect affecting vehicle safety, specifically that the tanks would corrode and explode. Internal memoranda of the defendants indicated that they determined that there was a defect in the product and that the use of the tanks for this kind of particular application was inappropriate. General Motors paid approximately $ 51 million for the recall.

The defendants claimed that the explosion was really the fault of PG&E employees, including plaintiff, in carrying batteries in the back of the pick-up truck and allowing them to spill. They claimed at trial that PG&E's conduct was a superseding intervening cause of the accident.

Defendant General Motors attempted to exclude any reference to the recall or the fact that PG&E had all of the trucks repurchased by General Motors for 100 cents on the dollar, including the truck which exploded. The court allowed plaintiff to introduce evidence of the recall, but required that the plaintiff have independent proof of the existence of the defect. Dr. Robert Anderson, a metallurgist/accident reconstructionist, was able to identify various areas where the product was defective including the use of the particular type of fiberglass (Eglass), the design and placement of the stone shields causing fluids to be trapped against the bottom of the tank, location of the tanks, failure to coat the outside of the tanks, and other such problems.

General Motors took the position that it had nothing to do with the design or manufacture of the CNG part of this truck and that it was responsible, at most, for selling it. Even then it attempted to dispute its responsibility for the sale of the product because the truck had been sold through its authorized dealer.

Defendants contended that the truck was not used in a reasonably foreseeable fashion. They claimed it was a complete misuse of the property.

• Williams v. Reading Anthracite Company
• Stocker v. Bell Helicopter
• Singletary v. Milnor
• Anonymous v. Anonymous
• Tom v. General Motors Corp.

Recalls and Class Action Topics

• Boats and Boating Safety
• Consumer Products
• Environmental Products
• Foods Medicines Cosmetics
• Meat and Poultry Products
• Motor Vehicles Car Seats
• Product Recalls
• Recalls and Class Action Verdicts

Recalls and Class Action Videos

• Class Action Litigation
• Mass Torts
• Recalls and Class Actions

Recalls and Class Action Links

• Recalls and Class Action - U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Includes the most significant product actions of the last 60 days, based on the extent of distribution and the degree of health risk.