But of course, it only works when properly constructed. In the case of Quilez-Velar v. Ox Bodies, Inc., the allegation was that the underride guards affixed to a tractor-trailer in San Juan, Puerto Rico failed in their main functional objective: To keep a car from riding up underneath a large truck. This resulted in the death of a young mother, who was driving with her toddler son.

A product liability lawsuit was filed against the maker of the company. While a jury decided the case in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $6 million, jurors also apportioned 80 percent of the fault to the city of San Juan – which was a non-party in the injury lawsuit. This was bad news for plaintiff’s in their wrongful death lawsuit because it meant that the $6 million damage award would be reduced to just $1.2 million. Plaintiff, representative of decedent’s estate, appealed.

According to court records, the crash occurred Oct. 1, 2010, when a 28-year-old married woman was driving her toddler son on a highway overpass in her Jeep Liberty. The Jeep collided with a large, slowly-moving truck operated by employees of the City of San Juan. The truck had an underride guard that was affixed to its rear. That feature was manufactured by a company called ox Bodies.

The Jeep struck the truck from behind and underrode the body of the truck. The back of the truck penetrated the Jeep, causing lacerations to the victim’s head and face. She died five days after the truck accident.

Her family members filed a lawsuit in a Puerto Rico court, alleging negligence and seeking damages from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority, Integrand Insurance Company and the City of San Juan. The city and its insurer later filed a third-party complaint for indemnification against the company that made the underride guards.

the city and its insurer deposited the $500,000 contribution for potential distribution if it was found liable. A court in Puerto Rico ordered that money distributed to plaintiffs and dismissed the city from the lawsuit. There was not a formal settlement, and therefore no release of liability.

An amended complaint by plaintiff was filed in federal court against the manufacturer of the underride guard.The company then filed a third-party action for indemnification against the city, at which point the city noted the $500,000 payment it had already made. Federal court judge then dismissed the city from the proceedings. The case continued with the product manufacturer as the sole defendant.

Plaintiffs asserted design of the underride guard was defective because it was too small – 16 inches on either side were left unprotected. Additionally, the guard wasn’t designed to adequately withstand impacts with loads that exceeded 7,000 pounds.

Following a 12-day trial, jurors returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $6 million, but determined the city was 80 percent liable, so defendant manufacturer was only responsible for 20 percent of the damage award, or $1.2 million

Both parties appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, though it certified a question on damages to the Puerto Rico court.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Quilez-Velar v. Ox Bodies, Inc., May 9, 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Proves Fatal for Two, May 5, 2016, Miami Car Accident Lawyer Blog

Fiat Chrysler’s decision to limit the recall is now hitting the headlines. One of the vehicles that the company declined to recall, a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee, was involved in a rear-end collision in which the fuel tank caught fire, killing a four-year-old boy who was strapped into a booster seat in the back seat. The family has filed a lawsuit in their home state of Georgia, and the judge in the case has just ordered the CEO of Fiat Chrysler submit to a deposition.

In the Jeep Liberty and Grand Cherokee models that Fiat Chrysler was asked to recall, the fuel tank is found between the rear axle and the bumper. This poses a problem because it can be punctured in a rear-end collision. According to the NHTSA, at least 51 people have died because a rear end collision in these vehicles caused a tank fire.

Fiat Chrysler still has not issued a wider mandatory recall, nor has it admitted that the fuel tanks may pose an unreasonable danger to car occupants. In commenting on the Georgia lawsuit, a company representative shifted the blame for the fire that caused the toddler’s death onto the driver of the pickup truck that rear-ended the Jeep, which was stopped at an intersection.

The lawsuit over the toddler’s death was filed in the Superior Court of Decatur County, Georgia. News of the ruling compelling the CEO of Chrysler Fiat to participate in a deposition was first reported in the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News.

By Richard LaGarde

According to police, the driver of a Jeep Liberty was speeding when he came upon road debris. Swerving to avoid hitting it, he slammed into a pick-up truck. Unfortunately, that began a chain-reaction. The pick-up truck in turn hit a Ford Taurus sending it into a guardrail before overturning. The drivers of the Liberty and pick-up truck escaped with minor injuries; the driver of the Taurus suffered several broken bones and a traumatic brain injury.

Victims of this auto accident should contact an experienced attorney to determine their rights. They may be entitled to financial compensation for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and any other damages related to the accident. The unfortunate aspect of road debris claims is proof; the plaintiff must prove that the debris was the cause of the accident; there must be proof that the accident would not have otherwise occurred. Often times, these types of lawsuits will take more time than a plaintiff can financially withstand. Someone else’s poor judgment should not force victims into debt. For plaintiffs in need of financial assistance, litigation funding may be helpful.

Litigation funding is a no-risk solution for any financially-strapped plaintiff. Poor credit? No worries! No job? No worries! No money to make monthly payments? No worries! The only condition to receive funding is a case with merit.

If you have been harmed in an accident caused by debris in the street, you may be able to receive financial compensation from the party responsible. Once you have filed a lawsuit, you may be entitled to litigation funding. The process begins with completing a one-page application upon which time Litigation Funding Corp. will contact your attorney for case documentation. If your request for funding is approved, a contract is executed and cash can be available within 24 – 48 hours. Repayment is made once your case successfully settles; if you lose your case, repayment is completely waived.

If you are a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit, have fallen on tough financial times, and need cash to pay the bills, call Litigation Funding Corp. We would be happy to review your case and determine if litigation funding is right for you.