Hide Article Text (OCR)
► FROM PAGE 1attorney fought to get nformation from GMInvestigators estimated the car vas traveling about 11 to 12 miles in hour when the rear of the vehicle struck an embankment. Experts for Stump determined the impact of the 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass wasn’t strong, but Stump was thrown into the backseat when her front passenger seat broke loose.Stump’s side claimed the accident was caused by a defective passenger seat restraint — a bolt underneath the left side of her seat held in place by a metal strap.Stump’s experts theorized that on impact the bolt separated from the strap, causing Stump’s seat to swing open like a gate and pitch her backward into the rear seat.Research shows that when a car hits something in the front, the occupants are protected from slamming forward into the windshield by seat belts and air bags. But in a rear collision, Ryan argued, it’s the seat that keeps the driver and front-seat passenger from flying backward into the rear seat of the vehicle.GM’s attorneys argued Stump’s injury would have been prevented had she and the driver been wearing their seat belts, which they were not.Buried in paperRyan, 35, took over the Stump case from another attorney at her former law firm, Clark, Mize Linville. Among her and Adrian’s first tasks was finding the car, which the insurance company had sold to someone in Hastings, Neb. An investigation of the vehicle revealed the suspected defective seat restraint.Next, they sought data on the seat design from GM. But they quickly found out that getting such information from the corporation was tantamount to breaking into Fort Knox.The attorneys made six different motions in Republic County District Court to obtain the records. Six times the court ordered the company to comply.Finally, District Judge Thomas Tuggle ruled that “General Motors ... did not engage in cooperative, common sense, good faith discovery, and essentially stonewalled the plaintiff.”In the end, GM was fined more than $200,000 for failing to comply, although penalties were not sought or entered against attorneys representing the company.Meanwhile, Ryan and Adrian obtained orders allowing them to conduct unrestricted searches of General Motors documents and databases to get the information they needed.GM didn’t allow the attorneys into its offices; instead it rented hotel conference rooms where boxes of records, and sometimes computers, were brought in for the attorneys to inspect, Ryan said.Out of 2 million documents she had access to, Ryan located 40,000 relevant to the case.But like other cases where it has paid millions to settle cases before■trial, GM turned over the documents under a court-imposed con-., fidentiality order prohibiting Ryan' and Adrian from disclosing what they discovered to anyone else — including other attorneys repre-y senting clients with similar claims.Keeping trade secretsGM contends protective orders are necessary to prevent competitors from stealing trade secrets.; Opponents charge such agree-( ments keep secret serious matters ‘ affecting public safety. ,“They’re not hiding anything; they’re protecting information that’s proprietary to them, ” said a ' defense attorney from Wichita who asked not to be identified. .For instance, he said, vehicle ‘ manufacturers can and do purchase and dismantle each other’s products to learn about their competition. *But that doesn’t tell them how a , particular part was manufactured or the materials used to make it.“That’s really the type of infor- t mation they’re trying to protect,” the attorney said.He also challenged the view that ^ auto safety improvements are a product of lawsuits.“I’d say that’s the plaintiff’s, view, and it’s a very inaccurate view,” the attorney said. “The car companies spend a lot of money, and have for a very long time, on car safety. Really, the safety. record out there is very good. The ‘ perception that it’s driven by liti- ^ gation is completely inaccurate.” * Ryan contends that openness would serve both the car eompa- * nies and consumers better by removing suspicion as well as improving safety.“We (attorneys) are in a terrible position because we know of safety information that could ; come out, and could benefit the public,” Ryan said. “On the other hand, we do not represent the pub-'' lie, we represent one individual, ; or individuals in one case, and if it is in their best interest to settle 7 the case, even subject to a protec-' tive order, then we represent that client. We don’t represent the rest of the world. And we’re not enti- ‘ tied to make that choice. That’s t not our choice to make.”Gratifying finishIToday, Jana Stump is a 19-year-old freshman and a member of the wheelchair basketball team at the 1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. There is satisfaction in restoring financial health to a victim of an accident when physical health ' is an impossibility, Ryan said.“Product liability law allows me 7. to feel like I have a mission, like I’m improving something, in a very, very small way,” she said. “It’s very gratifying to represent someone injured because of a product defect. *“What else can you do for them? You can’t give them back their * legs; you can’t give them back their life. About all you can do is provide , them with a little bit of financial se- ^ curity so their families don’t bank-}#* rupt themselves buying wheelchairs r and putting ramps on their homes I and all the other stuff. It’s just ; much more personally gratifying. ”
Newspaper Details
Salina Journal
Salina, Kansas, US
Sun, Feb 05, 1995
Page 41
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
USA 08 Jan 2020
Other Publications Near Salina, Kansas
Saline County Journal
Salina Svenska Harolden
Salina Journal
