DaimlerChrysler Appeals South Carolina Decision
7 March 2000
DC Claims Verdict Unconstitutional; Award ExcessiveAUBURN HILLS, Mich. - Citing numerous errors by a lower court, and a staggering verdict premised on a misleading depiction of events, DaimlerChrysler Corporation this morning filed an appeal in an attempt to overturn a record $262.5 million verdict rendered by a Charleston, South Carolina jury. The appeal in Jimenez v DaimlerChrysler Corporation was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia. "This is a classic example of the civil justice system running amok," said Ken Gluckman, Assistant General Counsel, DaimlerChrysler Corporation. "The jury was forced to decide this case without hearing the two most critical pieces of evidence -- the fact that the minivan driver, Sergio Jimenez's mother, caused the accident by running a red light, and that the child would have survived if he had been wearing a seatbelt. How can we expect juries to reach a fair verdict when they are denied access to the facts?" DaimlerChrysler bases its appeal on several key arguments: Critical Evidence Wrongly Withheld/False Material Wrongly Admitted: While the judge ruled that the fact that Sergio was unbelted, could not be mentioned by Chrysler, the plaintiff's counsel was allowed to tell the jury that the child was wearing a seatbelt. The fact that the child was unbelted was verified by police and experts from both sides. Thus, instead of knowing that Sergio was not belted at the time, plaintiff's counsel had the jury believing that precisely the reverse was true: that he was belted. "It is hard to envision a more damaging, and more outrageous, impression for the jury to take into deliberations," Gluckman said. Huge Punitive Damage Award Is Unconstitutional: The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to convert this case into a fight over punitive damages when there was not a shred of proof that supported any punitive damages. The fact that the Chrysler minivan met or exceeded all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards automatically should bar punitive damages because by meeting such standards, Chrysler's actions could not be construed as, "willful, wanton, or in reckless disregard of others." In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that punitive damages can be so "grossly excessive" that the award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the punitive damage award is nine times larger than the combined total of all punitive damage awards to survive appeal in South Carolina since 1945. "The breathtaking size of the award alone demonstrates that the jury acted emotionally, based on an incorrect description of the accident and of the design of the minivan," Gluckman said. "We are confident that the appellate court will right this wrong." Background On April 10, 1994, the minivan driver ran a red light -- directly into the path of an oncoming car. The force of the collision was so severe that it caused the minivan to do a complete 360-degree roll and a 180-degree spin. Tragically, 6-year-old Sergio Jimenez, who was not wearing his seatbelt, was thrown from the vehicle. His mother and sister, who were both wearing their seatbelts, escaped serious injury. "The only thing more tragic than Sergio's death is the fact that it did not have to happen," said Gluckman. "We agree with the plaintiffs who conceded at trial that had Sergio been belted he would have stayed inside the vehicle, and if anything, would only have suffered very minor injuries. The case, Jimenez v Chrysler Corporation, decided on October 8, 1997 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, stemmed from a crash involving a negligent driver and a 1985 Dodge Caravan. In October 1997, Chrysler Corporation filed its post-trial motions asking the trial court to reverse the jury's decision or grant it a new trial. Two years later, in December 1999, the trial court denied Chrysler's motion, and instead adopted large portions of plaintiff's proposed opinion verbatim (except to reduce the compensatory award from $12.5 million to $9 million). "What should have been a simple and straightforward trial deviated into a three-ring circus focused on inflammatory, baseless allegations that had nothing to do with the core of the case," Gluckman said.