Pezzy Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Aug 19, 2009 (Tyler Morning Telegraph - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- NSANY | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating -- A federal judge has upheld a jury verdict award of $1.85 million to a Tyler woman who sued Nissan after she was seriously injured in a 2006 car accident. Rebecca Perdue, 63, filed a lawsuit against Nissan Motor Co., LTD, claiming her 1995 Nissan Pathfinder failed to protect her during a Nov. 28, 2006 collision in Tyler. A seven-person Marshall jury in U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis' court returned its verdict in May, finding Nissan was responsible for her injuries. Mrs. Perdue's husband, Bobby Perdue, and their daughter, Robyn Perdue, were also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Nissan filed a motion for a new trial or judgment but after reviewing all of the evidence in the case, the judge denied the request. "Plaintiffs presented more than sufficient evidence during trial that Mrs. Perdue's injuries resulted from Nissan's product rather than the mere occurrence of the vehicular collision," Davis' Aug. 9 order states. In accordance with the jury's verdict, the judge in May issued a final judgment, which states there was a design defect to the structure of the Pathfinder at the time it left the possession of Nissan, which was a "producing cause" of her injuries. The court also found there was no negligence by two others involved in the collision that caused or contributed to her injuries. Mrs. Perdue was traveling on University Boulevard when she was struck by a vehicle, which had previously collided with another car, the lawsuit states. Mrs. Perdue was wearing her seatbelt but claims the Pathfinder was "not reasonably crashworthy and was not reasonably fit for unintended, but clearly foreseeable, accidents," the lawsuit states. The vehicle hit the left front corner of Ms. Perdue's Pathfinder and caused the left front tire to drive back through the firewall and destroy "the footwell, floorpan and toeboard survival space." Mrs. Perdue suffered fractures to her right tibia, fibula and both ankles and has had $130,000 in medical expenses, her attorneys said. "Mrs. Perdue will never walk normally again, but fights through the pain of each step she takes," they said, adding she still has screws, plates and rods in her leg and ankles. The plaintiffs alleged the design of the 1987-1995 Nissan Pathfinder was defective for not being able to protect the lower legs and Nissan failed to conduct any crash testing or engineering analysis to evaluate the risks, hazards and dangers associated with it. Nissan denied the vehicle was defective or unreasonably dangerous in any respect, denied the alleged defects caused the plaintiff's injuries and denied it was liable. Nissan also denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any damages. The defendant claimed the crash and Mrs. Perdue's injuries were the result of negligent acts and/or omissions of others beyond Nissan's control, indicating it was the fault of two others involved in the 2006 collision with Mrs. Perdue. The Pathfinder met or exceeded all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, according to Nissan's answer to the complaint. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/S...20News/2489464/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 What a stupid lawsuit. The government said that it passed all required standards (from safety features to emmisions)!! Someone hit her hard enough to tear off a wheel and shoved it through the floor board (and exhaust I might add). So it's Nissan's fault?? This happens how often?? OMG WTF?? Sheit happens lady!! Sue the people that hit you or caused of the accident... I'm too irritated to continue coherently. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadm4x4 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 And then people winge and bitch about the price of cars.Here is someone to blame.Hell just another reason to throw on a prety light or something to the next model and add another thousand just to cover that. good on ya love. when youre motorised scooter falls over going up a gutter you will have someone to sue couse it wont have training wheels....lol atleast youre still alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 good for her.. i agree with the verdict.. too bad the frame issue didn't fully come into play as that would have made a difference to all the wd21 owners who have to deal with the crappy frame which, imho, is a major hazard and a huge oversight by Nissan. i have sustained major leg injuries from my previous truck... maybe calling the atty.. thanks for posting this, pezzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezzy Posted August 22, 2009 Author Share Posted August 22, 2009 Actually, as I was reading it, I was waiting for the frame to be the cause... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morningwould Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 good for her.. i agree with the verdict.. too bad the frame issue didn't fully come into play as that would have made a difference to all the wd21 owners who have to deal with the crappy frame which, imho, is a major hazard and a huge oversight by Nissan. i have sustained major leg injuries from my previous truck... maybe calling the atty.. thanks for posting this, pezzy. I suppose you think companies who produce alcohol are at fault for drunk drivers hitting and killing people in vehicles that are not safe enough to be hit from odd angles. maybe that one could be a double suit against Budweiser and Nissan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerranoNZ Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I'm too irritated to post coherently. B I'll edit your post and call it mine I suppose you think companies who produce alcohol are at fault for drunk drivers hitting and killing people in vehicles that are not safe enough to be hit from odd angles. maybe that one could be a double suit against Budweiser and Nissan. Are you going to be following MZ round trying to aggravate him? Tread carefully man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeenyus Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I really do hate our world and the "I can sue anybody for money" people. vehicle accidents, thats what insurance is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshellis Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Talk more about the frame plz 94. Its not good? I thought they were real strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerranoNZ Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Talk more about the frame plz 94. Its not good? I thought they were real strong. I think he's referring to the rust problem that some of them have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I suppose you think companies who produce alcohol are at fault for drunk drivers hitting and killing people in vehicles that are not safe enough to be hit from odd angles. maybe that one could be a double suit against Budweiser and Nissan. you do realize that budweiser is a non existent company, right? I really do hate our world and the "I can sue anybody for money" people. vehicle accidents, thats what insurance is for. yes but when there are design/production flaws then that becomes another matter and thus this court action. Talk more about the frame plz 94. Its not good? I thought they were real strong. I think he's referring to the rust problem that some of them have. yes, and it pretty much spans all years with some being worse then others.. i think many 92, 94, and 95 had a bit worse of a problem.. and yeah, you can read some threads about those issues here or many other places on the world wide web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) you do realize that budweiser is a non existent company, right? There's a short case sitting in my fridge. Edited August 22, 2009 by Kingman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunya Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Uh, your truck was 11 years old at the time of the accident, be happy you were not in a Neon...(I was expecting some kind of shot at wd21 frames) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beavis0076 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) some of the frames were made from a cheaper grade of steel.... *read that here* as far as getting hurt in the pathfinder... ignorance is bliss in my opinion..... *looks the other way* *goes off thinking he's invincible* Edited August 22, 2009 by beavis0076 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 There's a short case sitting in my fridge. see inbev. dorothy, you're not in stl anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamzan Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I think he's referring to the rust problem that all of them have. I've seen two doors, and 90-95s with rotten frames around here. All depends on the climate you live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerranoNZ Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I've seen two doors, and 90-95s with rotten frames around here. All depends on the climate you live in. You can't say ALL of them rust out the frame, as there are a lot of WD21's with great rust free frames, worldwide. So this problem seems to be location. Can hardly blame Nissan for your climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Exactly!! I have 2 95 frames with minimal surface rust only, and that is because both trucks came from back east... Can hardly blame Nissan for your climate. Not just the climate but the fact that some people soak them in salt and then let them sit for a few months a year like that. If you live in the salt belt and you don't take steps to protect the underside of your vehicle (undercoating, etc) and then get upset because it corrodes, the only thing I can say to you is "Duh!!". B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magregor Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 It's easy to "undercoat" a frame, but the design of a "boxed frame" is a poor design right from the get-go...It is more difficult to maintain the inner part of the frame and keep it from rusting from the inside out. Most certainly climate and road maintenance is a large contributor to how vehicles rust... As for this lawsuit? Well, I can't believe this woman would go after a car manufacturer with a 14 year old vehicle! I agree with Jeenyus on this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 That's why there's holes to stick a sprayer in there and flush it out. Structurally it isn't a poor design, but it is for cleaning if you're too lazy to spray it out every once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magregor Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 That's why there's holes to stick a sprayer in there and flush it out. Structurally it isn't a poor design, but it is for cleaning if you're too lazy to spray it out every once in a while. I did that actually to both of my Pathys...When I got them, they were plugged over half full of rust flakes and silt. Drove the truck up on ramps, took front bumper off and used pressure washer (0 degrees nozzle) on my first pathy, and this one I just used the pressure washer in all the access holes, like you said, and kept washing it to the back end where the frame was open for the rear bumper. I got a gallon of rust/silt per side!!! I am favor to C-channel frame myself, but that is the only flaw of the pathfinder in my opinion. If the frame had larger access holes for silt and other debris to drain more freely, I would be more confident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 That's an awful lot of debris. Personally I like the torsional rigidity and strength of the boxed frame and I think that's one of the better points of these rigs. The frames are beefy and strong, unless you let them rust out of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magregor Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Correct me if I am wrong...I have heard rumors that from late 93-96, Nissan switched steel suppliers which they used to fabricate the frames and that the steel was a different balance of alloys, which in turn, made them more susceptible to oxidizing more quickly if not protected right off the lot... Is this true? Any takers on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunya Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I think it's just climate/maintnance/luck of the draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beavis0076 Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I have heard, and read on here exactly what you are reffering to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now