From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
48 Cal. App. 4th 580, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871 (1996)
Facts
Susanna Jeffrey (plaintiff) was injured when her Chevrolet Blazer was rear-ended. Jeffrey’s face hit the steering wheel even though she was wearing her seat belt. Jeffrey sued the other driver and 20 Doe defendants. About 17 months later, Jeffrey’s lawyer brought on more experienced counsel, who filed an amended complaint adding a products liability claim against General Motors (GM) (defendant), alleging that the seat belt in Jeffrey’s Blazer was defectively designed. GM moved to quash service on grounds that Jeffrey must have known she had a potential claim against GM when she filed her original claim because she previously told her doctor that her face hit the steering wheel in the accident because the seat belt did not hold her, and it is a known fact immediately after an accident whether a seat belt restrained a passenger or not. Jeffrey countered that despite knowing that GM manufactured her car when she filed her original complaint, she did not learn that the seat belt’s comfort-feature design was most likely the cause of her injuries. The trial court denied GM’s motion, and GM appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vogel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.