Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    First GM Ignition Switch Trial Is Dismissed

      The first Bellwether Trial against GM has come to an abrupt end

    The first bellwether trial against General Motors over the faulty ignition switch has come to abrupt end. The plaintiff, Robert Scheuer has voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit against the automaker according to a filing in Manhattan federal court today.

     

    Scheuer accused GM of concealing a defect in the ignition switch that caused the airbags in his 2003 Saturn Ion to not deploy when he crashed into two trees in Oklahoma in May 2014. The accident caused injuries to Scheuer's back and neck.

     

    As we reported in December, GM tried to dismiss the case. However, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial.

     

    So why was the case dismissed? To understand fully, we need to look at one of the claims made by Scheuer. He claims the crash caused memory loss and, in turn, caused him to misplace a $49,500 check for a down payment on a house in Tulsa, OK. This caused Scherer's family to be evicted from the house.

     

    But paperwork filed by GM's lawyers earlier this week tell a much different story. They have found evidence that Scheuer committed check fraud when buying the house. A real estate agent found Scheuer faked a check stub totaling $441,430.72 from his federal government retirement account as a “proof of funds”. The check stub originally totaled $430.72 before the changes took place.

     

    GM lawyer Richard Godfrey said in the filing suggests that Scheuer "misled his own counsel, as well as the court and the jury.” GM asked Judge Jesse Furman to present the evidence and bring two witnesses; the real estate agent and a forensic technology expert.

     

    “We are assessing GM’s allegations about a situation we were unaware of,” Robert Hilliard, the lawyer representing Scheuer told Bloomberg earlier this week.

     

    On Thursday, Furman granted GM permission to present this new evidence to the jury. Furman also said the new evidence would be “devastating,” making the suit “almost worthless as a bellwether case.” Furman urged the two parties to consider dismissing the case.

     

    “The apparent lies the plaintiff and his wife told the jury ended the trial early, and we are pleased that the case is over without any payment whatsoever to Mr. Scheuer,” GM spokesman Jim Cain said in a statement.

     

    Scheuer and his wife have hired criminal defense lawyers.

     

    The dismissal of this case is unlikely to affect other cases against. What it will do is make it slightly harder to determine the value of similar claims.

     

    Source: Bloomberg (2), Reuters

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Those that think the days of companies settling out to make a fast buck on fraud is over. I hope GM holds to weeding out these idiots.

     

    This is not to say that some of the victims of the ignition issue are not valid and deserve fair compensation.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I was hoping this got tossed as I read up on this case and it stunk from the start. 

     

    I wager the other cases are not any better but will GM has the dirt to prove it? 

     

    I find it fascinating how on so many of these cased I have looked at that there was so much more than the media would tell you. 

     

    As far as I am concerned GM should make this guy pay their legal fees. 

     

    I wish more companies could fight back with out being trashed in the media when they have a legitimate case to fight back. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think you guys are being way too generous to GM. This may be a case where someone was trying to take advantage of the situation as a whole, but in the legit ones, GM needs it's ass handed to it.

     

    And on a side note, Takata just needs to be shut the f@#k down.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think you guys are being way too generous to GM. This may be a case where someone was trying to take advantage of the situation as a whole, but in the legit ones, GM needs it's ass handed to it.

     

    And on a side note, Takata just needs to be shut the f@#k down.

    Well, Ill agree to that sentiment about GM's ass being handed to it only on the the aspect of when GM tried to cover up their cheapening of the part.

     

    NOT in situations like this court case...

     

    Same with Takata.

     

    But, not to be shut down...

    if THAT were the case, then Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Subaru, Toyota, Mercedes Benz, VW and others along with General Electric, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Sony, EXXON, ENRON, Goldman and SACHs among a helluva alot of others have commited fraud, theft, pollution, death etc...should also be shut down...

     

    I mean, that would be roughly about 99.999% of ALL corporations world wide...where would we go from there?

     

    Ive said it before, and Ill say it again...it is NOT the company as a whole that should pay the price, just the people involved with the scandals...

     

    The big wigs should rot in prison, because although Im a Greek Orthodox Christian, I somehow sometimes dont believe there is a God so them rotting in hell might not exist...so..rot in prison, but the good people that are still left in the corporate businesses they represent that were NOT involved should be allowed to run the companies...because the companies themselves are still responsible for millions of people...and the products they produce are still important for our lives...

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think a lot of corporate attorneys learned just how much fraud there is out there after the BP debacle. Yes, there are some legitimate plaintiffs that have actual damages and harm. But once you start to create a matrix of quality control for reviewing every case filed against you and red flags are found in the file, then, as Patrick Swayze would say in 'Road House', "it's time to not be nice."

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well in the book What Did Jesus Drive it lays out why companies settle. 

     

    Some cases it is because even if they win they will spend more than they could settle for. In other cases it is because even if they win the media paints them into a major PR mess that makes them look bad even if they did nothing wrong. It also outlines the case of the Ford, Firestone deal. If it were not for a joint family issue between the Ford and Firestone family Ford would have gone after Firestone. As it was the Family told those running the company not to toss them under the bus even with no Firestone family members at the company yet, 

    They all know there is a lot of fraud out there but few ever believe the large evil companies are ever right so  even in the cases where they are they have to use caution to make sure they are not painted evil just by sticking up for themselves. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Rivian has opened a new 8 stall 350kW fast charger station at Lynnwood mall plus a 9th Handicap fast charge stall. Seems when remote service is being done they are tagged red as two of the units are. They take credit or debit cards on top of if you setup a Rivian app account.  There are now over 100 fast charge stations within a 5 mile radius of where I live.
    • Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search