Return to In the News

Truck Manufacturer Found Liable for Negligent Design of Step.
Verdicts, Settlements & Tactics, January 2002, Volume 22, Number 1

On October 1, 199 Daniel Pinto slipped and fell while exiting a 1996 General Motors medium duty tow truck, injuring his right ankle. Mr. Pinto is a 43 year old former sole proprietor of his own trucking company, Ultimate Towing, and was required to sell his business as a result of this accident.

Plaintiffs alleged that the 35-gallon side saddle tank with an indented step on the top of the tank did not have slip resistant material on the edge of the step itself, but had oval serrated edges which stopped inches short of the edge. The defendants reported that its step tank design has been used in the manufacture of General Motors Trucks since 1990 and was scheduled to be used for the future models through 2003.

Dennis Vallad, a staff engineer for General Motors testified for the defense, and both experts agreed that there was little research available, but the trial focused on two specific research articles written by members of the Society of Automotive Engineers regarding the issue of which is the preferred design, General Motor's non-aggressive edge (slip resistant material stopping inches short of the edge), or Mr. Klopp's alternative aggressive edge design (slip resistant material at the edge of the step tank), neither of which gave a conclusion other than there was a need for further study.

Injury: Right ankle injury with fracture fragment and ligament rupture.

Result: ... jury verdict [for Plaintiffs]. The verdict was molded . . . pursuant to a pre-trial stipulation signed by Plaintiff to cap the damages so as to defeat the federal jurisdictional diversity amount and keep the claim in State Court.

The jury found that the non-aggressive, non-serrated edge was defective.

[Settlement negotiations: omitted]

Plaintiff's Expert Witness: Donald Klopp, Engineer, Trappe, Pennsylvania

Defendant's Expert Witness: Dennis Vallad, Engineer, Clarkston, Michigan

Plaintiff's Attorney: G. Lawrence DeMarco, of DeMarco & DeMarco, Philadelphia, PA

Defendant's Attorney: Mary Grace Maley, Philadelphia, PA

Pinto v. General Motors Corp., No. 3042 August Term, 1999 (Philadelphia Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas, Pa. Oct. 31, 2001)

Comments: Plaintiff's Attorney, G. Lawrence DeMarco, comments that the Defense engineer, Mr. Vallad did not have an opportunity to observe the actual subject vehicle, so he photographed a replica step tank of a different substantially similar vehicle and provided pictures of the step tank. Ironically, the photographs showed wear of the tank in the precise location of the edge where Plaintiff's liability expert argued should have had slip resistant material; Also the Defense expert relied on an SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) article which stated that overly pronounced slip resistant (on the step itself - not referencing the edge) could cause a twisting hazzard. Mr. Vallad misread the article and testified that the article said that Mr. Klopp's preferred design (with slip resistant material on the edge) causes a twisting hazzard, when it in fact, the article made no such statement.