View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy persuaded the Washington Court of Appeals to affirm a summary judgment order holding that the plaintiff had no evidence his seatbelt was defective.

Plaintiff brought a product defect action against our client, Ford Motor Company, after the metal latch part of his seat belt ostensibly “stabbed” him in the back when he hastily got into his car to chase another driver. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ford, finding that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of providing competent evidence that his seat belt was defective, or that it had caused him harm. Plaintiff filed an untimely motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. He then appealed from the denial of reconsideration.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reconsideration and the grant of summary judgment for Ford, adopting all of Horvitz & Levy’s arguments. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s untimely motion for reconsideration. It also held that even if the trial court had considered plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, denying the motion was not an abuse of discretion because the summary judgment order dismissing the case was proper. Plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of showing that his seat belt was not reasonably safe as designed or that it had caused him any harm. Staged photos and conclusory statements that the seat belt did not retract properly did not create a genuine issue of material fact. And plaintiff had provided no medical records to show he was harmed.