Crossley v. General Motors Corp.

Richard Crossley (plaintiff) became a spastic quadriplegic after a one-vehicle auto accident. Crossley was driving his Chevrolet S-10 Blazer 70 miles per hour on a freeway connector ramp. The tires of Crossley’s Blazer were worn, mismatched, low on pressure, and riddled with screws, nails, and plugs. An eyewitness testified that on the curve, Crossley’s left rear tire buckled and Crossley lost control, began to fishtail, spun 360 degrees, flew off the connector ramp, sailed 40–50 feet into the air, hit the ground, and rolled several times. Crossley was ejected. Crossley sued General Motors (defendant) in federal district court, alleging that a manufacturing defect rendered the vehicle’s axle brittle, which caused the axle to crack and resulted in the accident. At trial, Crossley presented two experts who testified axle embrittlement caused the wreck. General Motors contended that Crossley’s negligence caused his injury. General Motors put forth evidence of Crossley’s negligence, including eyewitnesses, a metallurgist, and an accident reconstructionist. Based on this evidence, General Motors argued Crossley’s negligence—not a cracked axle shaft—caused his accident. The district court jury found in favor of General Motors, finding Crossley’s negligence caused the crash. The jury found specifically that although there was a defect in the manufacture of the product, the defect did not cause Crossley’s accident, and the accident in turn broke the Blazer’s brittle axle. Crossley filed a posttrial motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. Crossley argued that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent because jury concluded the axle was brittle but then held this defect did not cause Crossley’s accident. Crossley appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of General Motors and its denial of Crossley’s motion for a new trial.