mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Paralyzed Police Officer Suing GM Over Chevy Impala Poor Roof Strength: Video

General Motors is currently facing a legal battle. Former Hazelwood Police Officer Craig Tudor filed a lawsuit claiming the company was aware of, but failed to adequately address, the poor roof strength of its Chevy Impala police vehicles. Tudor was paralyzed in a rollover accident while responding to a call while on duty. The lawsuit argues that GM’s negligence contributed to the severity of Tudor’s injuries.

A Chevy Impala police vehicle.

In 2016, Officer Tudor was responding to a call with the lights and sirens activated on his Chevy Impala patrol vehicle when he was struck by another vehicle, causing the Impala to roll over. The accident left Tudor critically injured and paralyzed. The lawsuit contends that GM knew that the roof strength of its police package Impala models was inadequate and required reinforcement as early as 2008. However, despite this knowledge, the lawsuit states that no significant improvements were made to the 2012 model that Tudor was driving during the incident.

The case has now reached the courts for the third time. The two previous trials ended in a mistrial and a hung jury.

The current trial, once again taking place in St. Louis County, is expected to conclude on May 17th. Tudor’s attorney, Grant Davis, emphasized that GM’s internal documents explicitly described the police Impalas as having “poor roof strength.” He accused the automaker of opting not to implement the necessary enhancements for financial reasons.

Defending GM, attorney Michael Cooney argued that the roof design of the 2012 Impala police models met the safety standards of the time and suggested that the type of injuries Tudor suffered typically occur before any roof crushing occurs, thus challenging the lawsuit’s claims that the roof strength was a direct factor in the injuries.

Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Impala news, Chevy news, GM legal news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. This kind of reminds me of the GM trucks side fuel tanks way back in the early 80’s where lawsuits began to fly due to some trucks catching fire in certain accidents. Although I certainly feel badly for this police officer and anyone who gets injured and/or killed in an accident, I also don’t think it’s correct that they can go back and do this if the vehicles in question met or exceeded the safety requirements of the time. So in my opinion, if the roof strength of the cars at that time met or exceeded the requirements, they should not be allowed to sue.

    By the looks of the crash and impact that caused the rollover, the structural integrity of the car would have already been compromised.

    Reply
    1. You are 200% correct. On the surface it looks like the 2008 documentation was about extra reinforcement for police specific vehicles, same way the crown Vic road on the “panther platform” which was a truck frame with a unibody on top so police cars could run over curbs in high speed chases. Not a requirement for normal cars at all. My guess is this would have happened if he was in a Tahoe or explorer as well. It’s tragic, but sometimes things are unavoidable. Glad he’s still alive with his family to say the least.

      Reply
  2. When Police have the A Pillar drilled to mount the search lights they cause structural damage to the vehicle. The A Pillar is designed to prevent such things from happening under most circumstances. We will not buy them or take them in trade as the CarFax Vehicle History will show structural damage. This won’t go far in court and will probably find that the police department is liable.

    Reply
  3. Qualified immunity when they kill, I think they should get qualified no indemnity when they flip a car.
    If they want to be above the law, they should get no protection of law. Either you are subject to laws or you aren’t. Having only laws that are applicable when beneficial to them is bs.

    Reply
    1. Srart: Did you watch the video? On the way to a call and (from what I can see) at no fault of the officer, another vehicle smashed into the drivers side door of the patrol car. Maybe go back and watch the video and come back with a different comment?

      But having been a police officer and then chief of police years ago, I do agree that the police must follow the same laws and lead by example. This doesn’t seem to be a case of abuse, but simply an accident with unfortunate results. With that said, I don’t think GM should be sued in this case.

      Reply
  4. sounds more like a workers-comp. claim, to me.

    Reply
    1. I would agree if it didn’t end up with him paralyzed. Tragedy happens, but on the bright side, many more lives are saved by modern marvels and engineering.

      Reply
  5. I’ve owned one of these impalas in the LS trim with the 3.5. Such a reliable little bastard … idk what this guy is talking about lol I’ve been in 2 accidents and this car saved my life while still being drivable afterwards.

    Reply
    1. If the vehicle was drivable afterwards, it wasn’t a life saving crash…

      Reply
  6. I guess the idiot who hit him has no money or not enough insurance so let’s go after GM when we lose that case we will go after the police department and the town.

    Reply
  7. The other driver is 100% at fault, not GM.

    Reply
  8. Any update on this case?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel