Skip to main contentSkip to navigation
Hamilton Law Firm LLC
Hamilton Law Firm LLC

913-647-7512
Legal Question?

Menu
  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profile
  • Practice Areas
  • Why Choose Us
  • Representative Work
  • Legal News
  • Contact Us

Practice Areas

Business Litigation
Legal Malpractice
Local Counsel
Medical Malpractice
Nursing Home Abuse
Personal Injury
Product Liability
Wrongful Death

For More Information

Fill out our online form

Home » $3.5 Million GM Rollover Verdi…

$3.5 Million GM Rollover Verdict

August 10th, 2010
Posted By
Patrick Hamilton
Tweet

(August 10, 2010) -- General Motors Corp. has failed to convince a federal appeals court to reverse a $3.5 million jury verdict in a case over the death of a teenager in the rollover of an allegedly defective Chevrolet Blazer.

The lower court did not abuse its discretion when it denied several GM requests to intervene in its favor and to exclude evidence in the trial over the death of Matthew John Reynolds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said in an order issued Thursday.

Reynolds, a Hall County, Ga., teenager, died in June 2003 when he was ejected from his family's 1995 Chevrolet Blazer following a collision with another car.

His parents, Bonnie and Garland, sued on behalf of themselves and his estate, claiming the Blazer rolled because it was defectively designed. Matthew was ejected and killed after the rollover — not after the collision itself, they said.

The SUV’s center of mass was too high, which made it tip more easily than it should have, the Reynolds claimed. The SUV's roof was also too prone to crush, and its seatbelts were defectively designed and released too easily, they claimed.

In June 2008, the jury awarded the Reynolds and Matthew's estate a total of $3.5 million. GM asked for a new trial, but the court ruled that the experts the Reynolds provided gave ample evidence to support the finding of liability.

GM had argued certain questions — like whether its warnings in the car were adequate or whether Matthew was injured in the initial crash or his subsequent ejection — should have been decided as a matter of law. The district court, though, found its own judgment proper.

The Eleventh Circuit agreed. Though GM offered six grounds on which the verdict should be overturned, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district had acted properly.

“Although we review jury instructions de novo to determine whether they misstate the law or mislead the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party, the district court is afforded wide discretion with respect to the instructions’ style and wording as long as the instructions accurately reflect the law,” the panel said in its per curiam decision.

“With respect to the claimed evidentiary errors, we are not persuaded that any of the challenged decisions amounted to an abuse of discretion,” the panel said.

The Eleventh Circuit added that several questions over Georgia vehicle defect law were properly decided in the Reynolds' favor.

The case is Reynolds et al. v. General Motors Corp., Case Number 08-16182, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Categories: Legal News

Practice Areas

Business Litigation
Legal Malpractice
Local Counsel
Medical Malpractice
Nursing Home Abuse
Personal Injury
Product Liability
Wrongful Death

For More Information

Fill out our online form

Recent Blog Posts

18
Negligence Lawsuits: What the Plaintiff Must Prove
February 18th, 2021
Negligence occurs when a party fails to exercise proper care and, as a result, damages occur. Laws surrounding negligence and liability vary from state to state, so it’s important to contact a Kansas and Missouri injury attorney to represent your c… Read More
6
Legal Malpractice: What You Must Prove
February 6th, 2017
If you believe you were not represented properly by an attorney, a Kansas legal malpractice attorney can help determine if you may have a claim. As you can imagine, pursuing a claim against an attorney can be an uphill battle. Attorneys that may be p… Read More

Read more from our blog

Representative Work

$170,000 Jury Verdict in Negligent Misrepresenation Case
On April 24, 2018, attorney Patrick Hamilton obtained a $170,000 jury verdict in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in a negligent misrepresentation case. Hamilton Law Firm’s client purchased a house in Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Kathryn Sylvia was the seller’s real estate agent and an employee of defendant Platinum Realty. The sale was a “cash sale” in which payment was to be wired. The plaintiff received wiring instructions via email from Sylvia’s email account. Plaintiff forwarded the wiring instructions to his bank, which wired his money in accordance with the instructions. In actuality, the wiring instructions were prepared by a criminal hacker which caused plaintiff’s funds to be misdirected to Citi Bank in New York City. When the loss was discovered, plaintiff sued Sylvia and Platinum for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants claimed they did not email the wiring instructions to plaintiff and that plaintiff was comparatively negligent by not reviewing the wiring instructions before sending them to his bank. After a two day jury trial, the jury assigned defendants 85% of the fault and attributed 15% of the fault to plaintiff. Total damages were $196,622.67 with a net recovery to plaintiff of $167,129.27. Bain v. Platinum Realty LLC et al., Case No. 16-CV-02326-JWL. Read More
$280,000 Jury Verdict in Legal Malpractice Case (January 18, 2017)
On January 18, 2017, Hamilton Law Firm LLC obtained a $280,000.00 jury verdict in a legal malpractice lawsuit for Power Control Devices, Inc., an Olathe company specializing in the manufacture of electronic devices. The underlying litigation involved a breach of contract lawsuit against Orchid Engineering, Technologies and Consulting in the Boston, Massachusetts area. After PCD’s case had been pending for almost two years, Orchid filed a motion for summary judgment contending the lawsuit was not filed before the statutes of limitation expired. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed, dismissing Power Control’s claims as untimely. Hamilton Law firm sued Power Control’s attorney in the underlying litigation, Michael “Mick” Lerner, for legal malpractice. After a seven day jury trial in Johnson County Kansas District Court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Power Control. PCD Verdict Form 2617 Read More

Read more about our successes

Contact Us

Google Map of Hamilton Law Firm LLC’s Location
Hamilton Law Firm LLC
8700 Monrovia, Suite 310
Lenexa, KS 66215
913-647-7512

© 2025 Hamilton Law Firm LLC
View Our Disclaimer
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm

Copyright © 2025 Hamilton Law Firm LLC