PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 22 rejected a motion by a defendant to dismiss a lawsuit in which he was accused of installing a faulty auto airbag that resulted in a man’s death.
“At this stage of the action, we must accept as true the plaintiff’s allegations,” Judge Harvey Bartle III wrote. “Whether the plaintiff will be able to establish personal liability (of the defendant) must await another day.”
Plaintiff Quichen Pan, acting as administrator of the estate for Shuo Zhang, filed the suit against the defendant Sergey Sklyarsky, president of Prestige Imports Auto Sales.
Zhang was killed in an auto accident in Howard County, Maryland, on Sept. 3, 2017. At the time, Zhang was driving a 2009 Honda Civic.
The ruling states that during the accident, a front airbag deployed and exploded into large pieces, causing Zhang to suffer massive facial trauma, a fractured skull and bleeding that allegedly resulted in his death.
In 2012, the ruling states the car had been involved in an accident and was declared a total loss by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. After the company obtained a salvage title, the car was sold to Prestige Auto during an auction. The car was repaired and new airbags installed.
The car was then acquired by Bay Motors of Rosedale, Maryland. Zhang purchased the vehicle from Bay Motors in June of 2016.
The suit states that Sklyarsky withheld critical safety information from government regulators and guaranteed the airbag in the vehicle was safe for use after installation and testing of the device.
Sklyarsky filed a motion for the court to dismiss the case citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendant maintained the plaintiff had no claim against him as an individual since he had been acting as the president of Prestige Imports.
The court opinion differed.
“It is well established in Pennsylvania that when a corporate officer personally participates in the (tort) conduct of the corporation, he or she may be sued and held personally liable,” the opinion concluded. “They may be held liable for misfeasance.”
The motion to dismiss the case was denied.