Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases

Practice Areas


Blog

Personal Injury

view all

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

view all

Workers' Compensation

view all

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

view all

General

view all

Legal News

Judge campaign candidates speak at dinner in Towanda

Judge Beirne unopposed in local race

Attorney General Tom Corbett to visit Bradford County

Beirne will run for full term as judge

Bias in Peer Review

Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers

Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance

Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding

Armenia bans ATVs

Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge

View All

Legal Library

Personal Injury

More Info

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

More Info

Workers' Compensation

More Info

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

More Info

Newsletters

More Info

General

More Info

Blog Category:

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

    7/14/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    New case law on signing releases in complex cases

    On July 7, in Ford Motor Company v. Buseman, the Superior Court reversed a trial court order denying a Motion for Summary Judgment in a products liability case resulting from a tragic car accident in which a Ford Explorer rolled over.

    A federal lawsuit was filed against the driver and settled with two insurance companies for general releases. A separate state action was filed against Ford Motor for defective design. After the federal lawsuit was settled, Ford filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the execution of broad releases in the federal lawsuit that released "all other firms, person," etc. released the parties to the state suit.

    The Superior Court holds that (at most) this is a unilateral mistake and the releases (without any limitations or indications that the state lawsuit parties were not released) were broad enough to effectively release the product defendants. The trial court was reversed.

    See the Court's full opinion here.


7/8/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Federal Verdict Against GM in Rollover Lawsuit

A jury found General Motors negligent in a rollover crash that killed a 14-year-old boy, awarding what may be a record amount to the parents who brought a lawsuit in federal court against the auto maker. The trial lasted two weeks.  

Garland Reynolds and his wife, Bonnie, were awarded $3.5 million in connection with the 2002 rollover accident that claimed the life of their son, Matthew. The Reynolds sued GM in 2006, alleging that the design of the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer created stability issues that contributed to the fatal wreck. The jury awarded no punitive damages.

A jury of five men and three women deliberated for nearly three days in U.S. District Court in Gainesville, GA before finding GM at fault.

The jury said to General Motors that the Blazer is unsafe and it should not have been designed without proper stability, attorney for the plaintiff said.

On June 3, 2002, Bonnie Reynolds was driving a 1995 Chevy Blazer on the Interstate with her son in the front seat when the Blazer was struck by a drunk driver who lost control of his Pontiac Sunbird.

The Blazer flipped several times and Matthew Reynolds was ejected. He died the following day in an area hospital.

The driver who struck the Reynolds' car was later convicted of first-degree vehicular homicide and is serving a lengthy prison sentence.

Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial of other rollover accidents involving the Blazer. The plaintiffs contended that the make and model was built with too high a center of gravity for the wheel base, and that the "track," or distance between the wheels, should have been widened to prevent stability problems.

Blazers manufactured from 1995 through 2002 have similar design flaws. The Blazer was subsequently phased out in favor of the TrailBlazer, which has a wider wheelbase. 

Evidence presented at trial called for a recall.

General Motors maintains that the vehicle is safe.

Company spokeswoman Geri Lama said GM was disappointed in the jury's verdict. They contend that the rollover accident is the sole fault of the drunk driver who struck the Blazer. GM is considering its options of an appeal.There was never an offer to settle, according to Plaintiffs attorneys.

GM was represented by a team of King & Spalding attorneys led by partner W. Ray Persons,

The case, in the Northern District of Georgia, is Garland Reynolds Jr. et al., v. General Motors Corp., No. 2:04-CV-106.