GM has once again been targeted by a lawsuit alleging a design defect in the roof of the Chevy Silverado pickup truck after injuries were sustained during a violent triple rollover resulting in a roof collapse.
According to a report by Car Complaints, the lawsuit was filed in the Jacksonville Division of the Middle District of Florida on behalf of plaintiff Miranda Polk, a passenger in the 2008 Chevy Silverado who was allegedly trapped inside the cab by the “matchboxing” of the pickup’s roof during the accident.
At the time of the crash Zachary Colley, the owner of the Chevy Silverado, was at the truck’s wheel and swerved abruptly for an unspecified reason while driving along Florida State Road 207 in June 2016. The swerve caused Colley to lose control, flipping over the pickup truck. The Silverado’s momentum made it roll over three times as it tumbled down the road before coming to a stop.
None of the vehicle’s three occupants were wearing their seatbelts. Colley was thrown out of the vehicle during the roll, as was right-hand passenger Trey Barone, with both surviving. Plaintiff Miranda Polk, the center passenger, remained in the vehicle and was trapped as the roof collapsed.
The lawsuit alleges the Chevy Silverado has a defective design allowing the “matchboxing” of the roof, which the case filing describes as a situation where “the roof pillars that support the roof collapse by bending at weak points and where they attach to the body of the vehicle.” A further description details how “the A-pillar collapses laterally and the roof crushes downward on top of the vehicle’s occupant(s).”
According to the filing, Fire Rescue found Miranda Polk trapped in the truck “in the fetal position” and had to cut through both the A-pillar and B-pillar to extract her. A severe spinal injury sustained during the crash has left Polk paraplegic.
In response, The General says Polk has failed to demonstrate the design of the Chevy Silverado is defective and that her injuries result from both the violent nature of the crash and her failure to wear a seatbelt. GM notes that the Silverado, though inspected by experts hired by Polk, was sold without GM being allowed to inspect it.
The automaker countered the assertion that the design of the Chevy Silverado is “unreasonably dangerous and unsafe,” made by Polk’s hired expert, Byron Bloch, by pointing out Bloch is neither an engineer nor a medical professional. It calls for the dismissal of the suit on these grounds.
Judge Marcia Morales Howard allowed the lawsuit to move forward. However, she disallowed Bloch’s testimony about Polk’s injuries, agreeing with GM that the expert has not been proven “qualified to testify about medical causation and biomechanics.” However, he will be allowed to testify about the design of the Silverado and its alleged defects.
Judge Howard also noted that legally speaking, defective design is an uncertain concept in the state, remarking that “The definition of design defect is in a ‘state of flux in Florida.'”
GM is already the target of a class-action lawsuit based on an incident where a 2006 Chevy Silverado roof collapsed during a rollover, severely injuring the head and neck of an occupant who was wearing a seatbelt.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Silverado news, Chevy news, GM legal news  and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
I’m sorry there were injuries but it wasn’t GM’s fault. With no seatbelts being worn and seemingly traveling at high speed to accomplish a triple roll in a full-sized pickup, i’d say they should feel lucky they survived. Her neck could have been broken whether or not the roof collapsed with no seatbelt and a triple roll.
Can any vehicle be designed to be able to protect everyone in any crash situation? Agreed that a vehicle should protect for the high percentage of situations, but for every type of crash that just isn’t possible. Maybe we need to start wearing 5 point harnesses and helmets and require roll bars as safety equipment. Are we becoming a society that doesn’t want to take responsibility for their actions? ( speed and no seat belts)
The top should not crush and cause permanent injury, it has also happened when seat belts were in use. Why all the efforts in side and front crash protection while ignoring on the top?
IIHS absolutely tests and rates them for roof integrity, though it looks like they started with the 2014 redesign as no data exists for the 2008 noted in the lawsuit.
I crashed a similar silverado and was shocked at the damage to the cab from being rear ended but I WAS wearing my belts. Good thing this truck wasn’t a convertible. Wear your belts Einstein.
I would need more information about the crash to say either way. I would also need to examine the vehicle and the environment around the crash site. Sounds like at the very least the driver is at fault for the crash and related injuries.
The real question here is why did the driver swerved in the first place and if he hadn’t swerved the truck would not have flipped over so it should have been the driver’s fault.
This does not seem too different from the Ford Super Duty Lawsuit for a crushed roof that killed a couple.
I am curious how the HUMMER H2 did on rollover tests compared to the Excursion, considering that the Excursion usually killed its occupants in a crash if it was an extreme rollover.