PITTSBURGH – A facet of Nissan’s design operation has been dismissed from litigation brought by a Missouri woman, who alleged that the driver’s seat of the Nissan Sentra she rented failed during a multi-car collision, resulting in her suffering paralyzing spinal injuries.
Mary Carlson of Mountain Grove, Mo. first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 15 versus Nissan North America, Inc. of Franklin, Tenn., Nissan Technical Center North America, Inc. of Farmington Hills, Mich., Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Kanagawa, Japan, Nissan Design America, Inc. of San Diego, Calif., Hertz Corporation of Estero, Fla., Derek D. Brown of Pittsburgh, Eric R. Seifert of Johnstown, ABC Corporations A-Z and John Does 1-10.
According to the suit, the Nissan defendants did manufacture and place into the stream of commerce the 2019 Nissan Sentra equipped with front seats designed by Nissan, which was rented out by the Hertz defendant.
“On or about May 9, 2021, plaintiff Mary Carlson was a belted driver in the subject Nissan Sentra which she rented from defendant Hertz at the 4560 McKnight Rd, Pittsburgh, PA 15237 location. The subject Nissan Sentra was traveling eastbound in the middle lane on Interstate 376, approaching the Forrest Hills exit. At all times relevant, subject Nissan Sentra was being used as intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner,” the suit said.
“As the subject Nissan Sentra was traveling eastbound, the Nissan truck driven by defendant Brown pulled in front of the subject Nissan Sentra and came to a complete stop. In response, plaintiff stopped the subject Nissan Sentra behind the stopped Nissan truck. Defendant Brown then put the Nissan truck into reverse and backed into the subject Nissan Sentra. After colliding with the front of the subject Nissan Sentra, defendant Brown pulled the Nissan truck forward, got out of the vehicle, and approached the driver’s side window of the subject Nissan Sentra.”
The suit added that the plaintiff kept her windows shut and called 911, while a third vehicle, a Ford Vehicle driven by defendant Seifert, failed to stop and rear-ended the subject Nissan Sentra, causing the subject Nissan Sentra to collide with the rear of the Nissan truck again.
At that time, the suit continued that defendant Brown then went back to the Nissan truck and continued to steal a vehicle from a Good Samaritan that stopped to help.
“When the collision occurred, the driver’s seat of the subject Nissan Sentra failed, collapsing backwards and allowing plaintiff to move from a restrained position toward the rear of the subject Nissan Sentra. The failure of the seat allowed plaintiff to become unrestrained and partially ejected from her seat. The subject collision was at foreseeable and survivable impact speeds for the driver, had the supplemental restraint system and driver seatback of the subject Nissan Sentra performed as designed and intended,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff Mary Carlson’s catastrophic injuries, including but not limited to her resulting paralysis, was caused by the catastrophic failure of the subject Sentra, which was designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, advertised, sold and supplied by the Nissan defendants and rented to plaintiff by defendant Hertz. As a result of the defection condition of the subject Sentra, including but not limited to the driver seat failure, plaintiff suffered serious, permanent, and catastrophic injuries, including but not limited to, a C2- C7 unstable cervical spine injury, bilateral pilon fractures at C-6, ventral epidural hematoma, and bilateral vertebral artery occlusions resulting in paralysis, incontinence, neuropathic pain, depression, anxiety, other mental injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, loss of use of her body, disfigurement, disability, loss of earning potential and severe pain and suffering, and will continue to suffer from these serious permanent and catastrophic injuries for the rest of her life.”
In a Feb. 28 answer to the complaint, along with new matter, Nissan North America rejected the notion that it was responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses are diminished or barred under the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act because plaintiff was contributorily and/or comparatively negligent. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations. Plaintiff may have assumed the risk of her activities and/or the risk of a known danger. Any conduct of defendant NNA, was not a substantial cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages and/or losses. The injuries, damages, and/or losses allegedly sustained by plaintiff were caused entirely by, or contributed to by, the negligent acts or omissions of individuals and/or entities other than defendant NNA,” the answer’s new matter stated, in part.
“Negligent acts or omissions of individuals and/or entities other than defendant NNA constitute intervening, superseding acts of negligence. The subject vehicle, including its component parts, may have been misused, abnormally used, abused, neglected and/or had an unauthorized alteration done by plaintiff and/or other individuals for whom defendant NNA is not responsible. Venue in Allegheny County may be improper and/or inconvenient. The injuries and/or losses allegedly sustained by plaintiff were not proximately caused by defendant NNA. The subject vehicle, including its component parts, may have been substantially altered and/or changed after it left the possession and control of the manufacturer and/or distributor. The subject vehicle, including its component parts, complied with any and all applicable federal, state and local laws, standards and regulations. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate the alleged damages.”
Additionally, Nissan North America asserted cross-claims of liability against each of its co-defendants.
On March 13, Carlson’s counsel offered a reply to Nissan North America’s new matter.
“Paragraph 65 of defendant’s new matter does not aver any facts and therefore, no answer is required. In the event Paragraph 65 is determined to aver facts, those facts are denied. Paragraphs 66-69 of defendant’s new matter are denied, and plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of the complaint as if fully set forth herein. Paragraphs 70-72 of defendant’s new matter are conclusions of law which require no answer,” the reply said.
“Paragraph 73 of defendant’s new matter is denied, and plaintiff incorporates by reference the averments of the complaint as if fully set forth herein. Paragraphs 74-93 of defendant’s new matter are conclusions of law which require no answer.”
UPDATE
On May 22, Nissan Design America, Inc. filed a motion for voluntary discontinuance, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229(b).
“Plaintiff commenced this complex product liability and negligence action on or about Nov. 15, 2022, alleging damages suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss Nissan Design America without prejudice, because it was not involved in the development, design, distribution and/or manufacture of the vehicle identified in plaintiff’s complaint,” the motion stated.
“All parties who have entered an appearance in this matter received advanced notice of the intent to secure a discontinuance of all claims against Nissan Design America, Inc., and have provided their consent to the same. Because defendant Brown, who currently resides in Allegheny County Jail, has not entered an appearance in this matter, Nissan North America, Inc. moves this Court to dismiss Nissan Design America, Inc. without prejudice, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229. Discontinuance with respect to Nissan Design America, Inc. will not prejudice the rights of any party, nor will it pose unreasonable inconvenience, vexation, harassment or expense to other parties.”
For multiple counts of negligence and strict liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by James R. Ronca and Meghan Mills of Anapol Weiss, in Philadelphia.
Defendants Nissan North America, Inc. and Seifert are represented by Gerard Cedrone, Michael J. Wozny and Karen M. Davis of Lavin Cedrone Graver Boyd & DiSipio in Philadelphia and Kyle T. McGee of Margolis Edelstein in Pittsburgh, respectively.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-013970
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com