Federal Judge Upholds $2.9 Million Verdict Against General Motors
A judge has ruled that GM's owner's manual about the possible dangers of letting children play in vehicles with keys was not sufficient. A $2.9 million jury verdict for a family that lost a child in a GM car stands.
April 20, 2018 at 04:44 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge this week upheld a Connecticut jury's $2.9 million verdict against General Motors LLC in which a young girl died in her family's Chevrolet Suburban sport utility vehicle in 2011.
In her 71-page ruling released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Janet Hall of New Haven knocked down all of the automaker's arguments about the accidental death of 8-year-old Maggie O'Connor, who died attempting to jump out of the vehicle that had started to roll into the woods.
O'Connor was playing with her younger brother in the SUV when she took the key out of the cup holder. Court filings show she then put the key in the ignition and turned it to the “accessory” position, which allows radio, windshield wipers and other features to run while the engine remains off. But when she moved the gear shift lever, the car started to roll.
O'Connor tried to jump out of the vehicle, but was instead crushed between the car door and a tree. She died instantly. Her brother was injured.
GM attempted to shift the blame to Maggie's mother, and maintained it provided sufficient warning about the potential danger. Its motion to set aside the verdict points to the “automatic transmission” section of the manual.
“Rose O'Connor never read the warning against leaving children in the vehicle with keys, or the instructions explaining that the Suburban's transmission could be shifted out of park without brake application,” the motion claimed.
Hall disagreed, and argued the company should have warned customers that a child with a key in the accessory position could cause the car to roll, just by shifting the transmission and without pressing the brake. She also refuted one of GM's main contentions, and got a court ruling instructing the jury that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to find that a warning in GM's owner's manual was “inadequate to warn of that risk.”
Robert Adelman, one of three attorneys representing the O'Connor family, told the Connecticut Law Tribune that GM's counsel informed him Thursday that the company will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City.
“In addition to blaming Rose O'Connor for what happened, they also blamed her 7-year-old son, who was in the car,” said Adelman, a partner with Adelman Hirsch & Connors in Bridgeport. “Rather than acknowledge a dangerous defect in their vehicle, their position has been to blame the mother. 'Blame the mom' is their answer to all of this.”
Adelman pointed to a striking difference between the grieving mother and the company. He said while Rose O'Connor “admitted from day one that she felt responsible, GM has denied from day one that they bear any responsibility.”
GM's court pleadings cited warnings in its owner's manual, but Adelman said that information should be on the vehicle, and not in a booklet.
“Parents make mistakes, and unfortunately parents do occasionally leave children in the vehicle with the radio playing or the DVD playing,” he said. “The warning is simply not good enough.”
The case examined how to assign blame to a company that underwent bankruptcy restructuring in 2009. The question was whether the post-bankruptcy entity would be responsible for potential liability for a vehicle made before 2009.
The O'Connors owned a 2004 Chevrolet Suburban.
“GM is attempting to shirk their responsibility,” Adelman said. “Their position in this case and others like it is that even if they find out about a defect in a car manufactured before 2009, they have no duty to inform the public or warn their customers. They do, though, have a duty to inform the public and the people driving these vehicles.”
Four attorneys represented GM: Stephanie Douglas of Bush, Seyferth & Paige in Michigan; Kent Hanson and Paul Darsow of Hanson Bolkcom Law Group in Minnesota; and Mark Claflin of Howd & Ludorf in Hartford. None responded to a request for comment Friday. Also, Joe LaMuraglia, a spokesman for GM, did not respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs' pleadings showed more than 40 similar incidents involving GM vehicles. Not all of those vehicles were Suburbans, but Adelman said they all had potential to roll without the engine on. Of those cases, seven children were injured and four died.
“Anytime you represent a family who lost a child, it takes a big piece out of you,” Adelman said. “I am very close with this family. I have in a way become part of the family, especially the son who is 14 years old now.”
Assisting Adelman were partner Joram Hirsch and associate Joseph Krevolin of Adelman Hirsch.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecond Circuit Upholds $5M Judgment Against Trump in E. Jean Carroll Case
4 minute readArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250