PITTSBURGH – A Pennsylvania auto dealership has filed preliminary objections in a survival and wrongful death lawsuit brought against it and General Motors, after the plaintiff’s son was burned alive and killed in an accident.
Bonnie Winkler (as the administratrix of the estate of Joseph M. Winkler) of Penfield first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 23 versus General Motors, LLC of Wilmington, Del. and Kurt Johnson Auto Sales, of DuBois.
“On Dec. 29, 2019, Joseph Winkler was the driver and operator of the Chevy Cruze, which was an automobile designed, developed, manufactured, tested, assembled, and/or distributed by defendant GM. On that date, the Chevy Cruze was traveling south on SR-255 and traveled off the west side of the roadway,” the suit stated.
“The Chevy Cruze continued to travel southwest before overturning and coming to rest, catching fire. A fire erupted and spread to the passenger compartment fully engulfing the Chevy Cruze burning Joseph Winkler alive.”
The suit said the defendant GM knew or should have known that the Chevy Cruze was defective, not crashworthy and not escape-worthy, and knew or should have known that the Chevy Cruze was defective because its crash protection design did not comport with the expectations of an ordinary consumer.
“As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the Chevy Cruze, plaintiff’s decedent, Joseph M. Winkler, sustained catastrophic personal injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death,” per the suit.
“As set forth above, defendants’ conduct and defective product design increased the risk of harm to plaintiff’s decedent, Joseph M. Winkler and was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joseph M. Winkler.”
UPDATE
Kurt Johnson Auto Sales, LLC filed preliminary objections in the case on Jan. 18, raising various differences with how the claims against were pled, first in the matter of the allegedly defective vehicle.
“Throughout the complaint, plaintiff invokes a collection of generalized, boilerplate conclusions and/or fails to set forth factual bases for her conclusions, in violation of the fact pleading requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a), which mandates that the materials facts upon which a claim is based shall be stated,” the objections stated, in part.
“Additionally, plaintiff riddles her pleading with jargon-filled, unspecific references to supposed technology that may or may not have existed at the time of the accident, and which may or may not exist to this day, depending on what plaintiff means by her choices of terms.”
The objections added that certain claims of defect should be stricken for their lack of specificity.
“They assert nothing more than the preposterous notion that product failure, or being injured while using a product, establishes the product's defectiveness. These paragraphs state nothing about the vehicle, the design, what it had or what it lacked, how it could be made better or how it differed from any other vehicle,” according to the objections.
Other objections related to striking allegations of negligence for failure to state a claim and the supposed legal insufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims of misrepresentation of the vehicle’s condition, on the part of the dealership.
For counts of survival and wrongful death sounding in both negligence and strict liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the applicable arbitration limits, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Jaime D. Jackson of Atlee Hall in Lancaster, and Jason M. Schiffman of the Schiffman Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Mark R. Lane of Dell Moser Lane & Loughney, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011954
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com