Lawyers for woman hurt in crash appeal Las Vegas jury verdict

Attorneys for a woman seriously injured in a crash while wearing a lap belt are challenging a jury verdict that found General Motors not liable.

On Nov. 17, a jury decided that the lap-only seat belt worn by plaintiff Allie Mead was neither unreasonably dangerous nor defective, and that General Motors had provided adequate warnings about its potential risks.

Court records indicated that Mead’s attorneys, Robert Eglet, Erica Etsminger and Joel Henriod, are contesting the verdict, alleging misconduct by General Motors.

Court transcripts show that the plaintiff’s lawyers raised concerns about the alleged misconduct during the trial, but the issue was deferred until after the jury reached its decision.

“Those questions often cannot be evaluated piecemeal in the heat of trial. They require complete record,” Eglet said. “And despite the pending sanctions motion and despite repeated warnings from this Court, the misconduct did not abate … It persisted through the remainder of the trial and culminated in the closing argument.”

A lawyer for the automaker could not be reached for comment.

Days after the trial, Eglet said, they also requested a new trial. He had previously asked the jury to award Mead $64.8 million.

That figure was in addition to the more than $8.6 million that Eglet said District Judge Tara Clark Newberry had ordered Mead would receive, if she won the case, as “special damages” for things such as loss of wages and cost of medical treatment.

Mead was riding in a 1998 Chevrolet truck around 1:50 a.m. on Aug. 18, 2018, when the vehicle collided with a tree and a boulder, her 2020 lawsuit said.

She suffered a spinal fracture, ruptured colon and abdominal trauma, according to a news release.

Eglet previously said that Mead lives with unending pain, will require additional surgeries in the future and has been diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder.

He argued to the jury that, though a lap-and-shoulder seat belt was the safest option and economically feasible, General Motors installed a dangerous lap-only seat belt instead.

However, Michael Cooney, General Motors’ attorney, said a seat belt — designed to redistribute energy and prevent occupants from being propelled forward — is not defective because it causes injury.

According to Eglet’s statements in the transcripts, Cooney repeatedly cited out-of-state cases and laws that ignored prior court rulings. Eglet also argued that Cooney presented a “prohibited” risk-utility argument, citing studies that contrasted decades of crash data with only a handful of injuries.

Eglet also said the studies were not admitted into evidence.

“Confusing the jury is not going to be permitted in this trial, and that’s exactly what Mr. Cooney did,” Eglet said. “The question before the Court is whether, taken as a whole, the conduct that occurred throughout this trial compromised the integrity of the process and the reliability of the verdict.”

Contact Akiya Dillon at adillo@reviewjournal.com.