Case No.: [Case Number]
Plaintiff: Emory Caudill
Defendants: FCA US LLC f/k/a Chrysler LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Larry Miller Jeep Chrysler Dodge and Grammer Industries,
Inc.
COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCT LIABILITY AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Preliminary Statement
This action arises from the Plaintiff, Emory Caudill, sustaining severe
physical and psychological injuries due to the unexpected deployment of a
defective Active Head Restraint (AHR) system manufactured and distributed by
the Defendants, FCA US LLC and Grammer Industries, Inc. The Plaintiff brings
this suit not only to seek redress for his injuries but also to highlight a
significant public safety threat posed by the Defendants' defective AHR
systems.
Arizona's
elderly drivers, veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
previous traumatic brain injury, and individuals with pre-existing spinal
conditions are particularly vulnerable to the harms caused by these defects
both as drivers and passengers. The Defendants' knowledge of the AHR system's
propensity for unintended deployment and their failure to act responsibly
necessitate intervention to protect Arizona's
residents.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to address the Defendants'
negligence and to consider the broader implications for public safety,
including recommending intervention by the Arizona Attorney General to prevent
further harm to vulnerable populations within the state.
Despite the severity of the injuries sustained and the Defendant's history of
product defects, particularly concerning Active Head Restraint systems, the
Plaintiff has encountered significant challenges in securing legal
representation. The Defendant's extensive legal resources and the high costs
associated with litigation have compelled the Plaintiff to proceed pro se. This
disparity underscores the necessity for intervention by the Arizona Attorney
General to ensure a fair and just resolution, not only for the Plaintiff but
also for other Arizona
residents facing similar obstacles in holding large corporations accountable.
I. Jurisdiction and Venue
This Court has jurisdiction and venue under Arizona law
because the events giving rise to this action occurred in Arizona, the
Plaintiff resides in Maricopa County, and the Defendants conduct business
within the State.
This Court is the most appropriate venue for this action, as the Plaintiff’s
claims arise from injuries sustained in Arizona Plaintiff’s economic damages
are intricately tied to Arizona’s state-regulated cannabis industry, which is
governed by Arizona law. Plaintiff’s economic and physical injuries have also
directly impacted Arizona’s
Medicaid system. Furthermore, Arizona
courts are uniquely qualified to address state-specific considerations,
including Plaintiff’s projected financial losses tied to his licensed role in Arizona’s medical
cannabis framework
II. Parties
Plaintiff, Emory B. Caudill III, is a resident of Maricopa
County, Arizona
Defendant FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler LLC, is a
Delaware limited liability company that, at all times relevant to this
complaint, manufactured, distributed, and sold products, including the product
at issue, in Arizona
Defendant Grammer Industries, Inc., a South Carolina corporation, manufactured and
supplied components of the defective Active Head Restraint (AHR) system for use
in vehicles sold in Arizona,
including the Plaintiff’s..
III. Factual Allegations
Despite having a pre-existing lumbar spine condition with a surgical cage from
approximately 2 decades ago and neck arthritis diagnosed several years ago, the
Plaintiff had not experienced any acute neck symptoms or required treatment for
the condition in the years leading up to the AHR deployment, of which Primary
care medical records will evidence. This demonstrates that the Plaintiff’s
conditions were not actively symptomatic at the time of the incident.
The startling
and unexpected deployment of the AHR caused the Plaintiff to experience an
instinctive self-defense reaction, resulting in a sudden twisting motion to
fight a perceived attack behind him. This reaction led to an immediate onset of
severe pain and sciatica in the lumbar region, as later documented during
medical evaluations. While the lower back injury aggravation was specifically
attributable to the startling effect of the deployment, the hyperflexion caused
by the AHR deployment directly aggravated the Plaintiff’s pre-existing neck
arthritis, which was further compounded by the fight-or-flight response.
Incident and Initial Trauma Response
On July 7, 2023, after dark,
Plaintiff entered the driver’s side of his 2017 Jeep Patriot and closed the
door using his usual method due to limitations from prior shoulder surgeries
from early 1990’s. While his head was positioned at a rearward angle, the
Active Head Restraint (AHR) system unexpectedly deployed, creating a loud noise
and impact without any external collision or airbag warning.
Consequently,
Plaintiff’s head moved backward at a left facing angle, similar to the position
the driver would assume when looking into the driver side mirror if the door
were closed. At that moment, the Active Head Restraint (AHR) system
unexpectedly deployed, seemingly in sync with the door slamming shut, and
without any external impact or rear collision event, nor was the dashboard SRS
airbag deployment warning light triggered from the AHR system tied to the SRS
airbag control system before or after it randomly deployed. Plaintiff’s head
was in extremely close proximity to the device, a replacement for the standard
headrest, which he and his wife had believed the standard device was purchased
with the vehicle. The AHR, known to the manufacturer for over a decade to
deploy randomly under certain conditions, engaged without warning.
The unexpected deployment triggered a startle
response, causing Plaintiff to perceive an imminent physical threat behind him.
This reaction led to violent twisting despite his pre-existing spinal
condition, resulting in severe injuries, including a traumatic brain injury
(TBI), spinal trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
The Costa v. FCA U.S. LLC case provides expert
testimony confirming that AHR deployment can produce a startle response, which
may cause immediate distraction and create a sense of danger. The intense
startle effect of this AHR deployment led Plaintiff to perceive an imminent
threat, triggering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, including
heightened vigilance and recurrent fears of being attacked. As a result of AHR
random deployment other serious injuries were sustained to include Concussion,
traumatic brain injury, and spinal injuries.
The deployment of the AHR triggered severe emotional and psychological trauma
The Plaintiff was diagnosed with PTSD, marked by recurring fears of being
attacked, anxiety, depression, and hyper-vigilance. The incident caused
significant distress, exacerbated by the stress of quitting cigarettes to
prepare for necessary surgery, adding to the Plaintiff's ongoing mental
anguish.
Efforts to Seek Timely Care and Chrysler’s Refusal to Assist
Following the injuries sustained from the
unexpected deployment of the defective Active Head Restraint (AHR) system, the
Plaintiff made concerted efforts to seek timely medical treatment. Recognizing
the urgency of addressing his injuries and his inability to afford necessary
care, the Plaintiff reached out directly to Chrysler at its highest levels,
including communications with the company’s Senior Attorney via its
representative, Michelle.
During these discussions, the Plaintiff explicitly
requested financial assistance from Chrysler to cover alternative medical
treatments that were urgently needed but unaffordable due to systemic
healthcare denials. Despite being aware of the severity of the injuries caused
by the defective AHR system and acknowledging the defect itself, Chrysler
refused to provide any meaningful assistance. Instead, Chrysler offered a
nominal $2,500 "donation," which the Plaintiff declined, as it was
insufficient to cover even basic medical expenses and failed to address the
Plaintiff’s suffering.
Chrysler’s refusal to act exacerbated the
Plaintiff’s injuries by delaying necessary care and added to the physical,
emotional, and financial toll caused by their defective product. This inaction
further underscores the Defendant’s disregard for consumer safety and
well-being.
Impact on Pre-Existing Conditions and Resulting Injuries
Prior to the AHR deployment on July 7, 2023, the Plaintiff had not required or sought
medical attention for significant lower back complaints for an extended period,
reflecting stability in his pre-existing lumbar condition.
Medical records demonstrate a gap in treatment for lumbar issues, which
suggests that the Plaintiff's condition had been manageable and stable prior to
the incident.
The AHR deployment triggered a sudden and violent twisting motion as the
Plaintiff instinctively reacted to a perceived life-threatening attack. This
motion significantly aggravated the Plaintiff’s pre-existing lumbar spine
condition, resulting in new symptoms, including severe lower back pain,
sciatica, and intermittent weakness radiating from the buttocks and thighs.
The
Plaintiff’s medical records indicate that these new and worsening symptoms
emerged immediately following the AHR deployment and were absent during prior evaluations,
highlighting a causal link to the incident.
The
Plaintiff’s injuries from the AHR deployment significantly aggravated
pre-existing conditions, including degenerative disc disease and congenital
spinal stenosis. The incident caused a rapid worsening of these conditions,
leading to partial paralysis in the left leg and foot, urinary incontinence,
and severe pain. Medical records document a steady decline in the Plaintiff’s
condition until a three-level neck fusion surgery was performed in April 2024.
This decline was directly attributable to the AHR deployment.
Additionally, the Plaintiff experienced a
worsening of his lumbar spine condition, requiring epidural injections to
manage severe symptoms. These injuries represent a direct and compensable
consequence of the Defendants’ defective product under Arizona’s legal standards.
Aggravation and Worsening of Pre-Existing Cervical Injuries
The Plaintiff sustained significant cervical
injuries resulting from the unexpected deployment of the defective Active Head
Restraint (AHR) system. The injury mechanism involved both:
1.
An initial hyperflexion injury caused by the
AHR deployment, which worsened pre-existing cervical spine degeneration.
2.
A secondary injury from a fight-or-flight
response, as the Plaintiff twisted violently in reaction to the startling
event.
Supporting Evidence
·
Imaging prior to the incident (August 2023 MRI
Exhibit D) documented chronic degeneration of C4-C7 with moderate to severe
spinal canal stenosis and foraminal narrowing without active neurological
symptoms requiring treatment
Following the AHR deployment, the Plaintiff
underwent a three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) from
C4-C7 in April 2024 to address worsening spinal canal and foraminal stenosis,
as revealed by post-surgical CT imaging. (Post_Fusion_CT.pdf exhibit B)
The November 2024 MRI further evidenced new and
progressive changes at C3-C4, including a 0.69 cm central disc bulge, moderate
facet overgrowth, and mild spinal stenosis, which likely resulted from altered
spinal biomechanics after the trauma and surgery. (Nov24_Cervical.pdf Exhibit
C)
Impact on Plaintiff’s Career and Economic Losses
At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was actively working to transition
off Social Security Disability and was engaged in developing a business venture
within Arizona’s
state-licensed medical cannabis industry. Plaintiff was the inventor of a
process for which he was licensed to present and develop under Arizona law. Plaintiff’s
work and credibility in this field were supported by his background as a
long-time advocate for medical marijuana (MMJ) and his role as the former
elected State Deputy Director of NORML. Plaintiff had engaged high-profile
attorneys within Arizona
to support his business endeavors and had secured a distribution agreement with
a leading cannabis distributor in Arizona,
guaranteeing the sale of any amount legally produced under state law, produced
using Plaintiff’s process. Plaintiff’s injuries caused by the defective AHR
system directly impaired his ability to complete this business endeavor,
resulting in substantial financial losses.
FCA’s Pattern of Unfair Practices and Current Probation
In Costa v. FCA, a jury found FCA guilty of engaging in unfair acts
or practices against consumers, despite FCA avoiding a recall by extending the
warranty for affected Active Head Restraint (AHR) systems. This pattern of
behavior demonstrates a systemic disregard for consumer safety and fairness.
Furthermore, FCA is currently under criminal probation for the second time,
underscoring the company’s ongoing pattern of unethical and potentially
unlawful conduct. FCA’s corporate actions reflect a broader failure to
prioritize safety and accountability, placing consumers at continued risk of
harm.
FCA’s conduct in addressing consumer claims, including the Plaintiff’s,
further demonstrates this pattern of unfair and deceptive practices. During
recorded calls before Christmas 2023, a representative of FCA’s Senior Attorney
admitted that FCA was aware of the defect, stating that “there is a problem”
and that their engineers were “working on it.” In the Plaintiff’s diminished
mental state, he reasonably interpreted this statement to mean that FCA
intended to issue a recall or implement preventive measures. As a result, the Plaintiff offered to sign a non-disclosure
agreement (NDA) upon reaching a settlement and committed to speaking highly of
FCA for taking responsible action.
The Plaintiff had advocated for mitigation strategies after his injury and
subsequent research of others claiming injury, including the adoption of safety
protocols from the aviation industry, to address the risks posed by millions of
aging vehicles potentially affected by the defect, as referenced in Costa
v. FC Despite acknowledging the defect, FCA offered the Plaintiff a
nominal $2,500 “donation,” framing it as a gesture of sympathy rather than a
legitimate settlement. This offer was conditioned on the Plaintiff signing the
ND The representative also mentioned replacing the defective AHR system with a
“fresh one,” which the Plaintiff later discovered referred to a post-August
2017 AHR model redesigned to address the risks of unintended deployment.
This approach—privately acknowledging the defect while minimizing the
severity of individual claims—illustrates FCA’s strategy to limit liability and
avoid public accountability. By framing the Plaintiff’s
injuries as minor and offering insufficient remedies, FCA’s conduct
reflects a broader corporate strategy of misleading and dismissive practices
that prioritize limiting liability over consumer safety.
FCA’s Early Knowledge of the AHR Defect:
FCA
has long been aware of defects in the AHR system. Internal documents and expert
testimony in Costa v. FCA U.S. LLC revealed that FCA knew as early as 2009 of
the AHR system’s tendency for unintentional deployment, with reports of
injuries dating back to 2011
By 2013, FCA had received numerous reports of
injuries, including whiplash and soreness, linked directly to AHR malfunctions,
highlighting foreseeable risks. . Even
if the rate of unintended AHR deployments is statistically low, the risks were
entirely foreseeable and preventable. FCA’s own testing, warranty claims, and
consumer complaints revealed a pattern of failures tied to the spring-loaded
mechanism. Despite this knowledge, FCA failed to redesign the product or
adequately warn consumers of the risks, prioritizing cost savings over safety.
Despite this knowledge, FCA continued selling vehicles with the defective AHR
systems without adequately informing consumers. (Costa Opinion for cert)
Selective Outreach
FCA Chrysler’s selective
outreach to individual consumers further demonstrates their failure to protect
the broader public. For example, a Chrysler representative contacted the
Plaintiff’s wife directly using dealership records, showing they had the means
to inform all vehicle owners of potential risks. Despite this
capability, FCA failed to issue widespread warnings or recalls, leaving most
consumers unaware of the dangers posed by defective AHR systems.
As detailed in the Public Policy and Consumer
Protection Concerns section, the Defendant's actions have broader implications
for public safety and consumer rights. Despite being aware of the risks
associated with the AHR system since 2009, FCA failed to notify all affected
consumers, even though they had the means to do so through dealership records
and customer contact information. For example, FCA’s representative Michelle
was able to contact the Plaintiff’s wife directly apparently using information
provided at the time of vehicle purchase. This demonstrates that FCA possessed
the ability to notify consumers about AHR deployment risks but chose not to
act, leaving the vast majority of owners uninformed about the dangers posed by
their vehicles.
FCA’s Pattern of
Unfair Practices and Consumer Challenges.
Despite significant documented defects and consumer reports of injuries
caused by the AHR system, FCA Chrysler has demonstrated a consistent pattern of
prioritizing cost savings over consumer safety. This pattern was highlighted in
Costa v. FCA, where a jury found FCA guilty of engaging in unfair acts
or practices against consumers.
Moreover, the high costs associated with pursuing claims against FCA
Chrysler have created substantial barriers for individuals seeking justice.
Plaintiff has faced significant challenges securing legal representation for
this matter, a reality that underscores the imbalance of resources between
injured consumers and corporate defendants.
FCA’s Dismissive Responses to Consumer Claims
During recorded calls before Christmas of 2023, a Chrysler representative,
identifying herself as subordinate to the Senior Attorney, contacted the
Plaintiff and his wife regarding the injuries caused by the deployment of the
Active Head Restraint (AHR) system. Over the course of several weeks, the
representative made multiple calls, and during the final call, she offered what
she described as a $2,500 “donation” from the Senior Attorney, stating it was
offered “because they felt sorry for” the Plaintiff. The phrasing and nominal
amount of this offer, delivered hesitantly, conveyed a dismissive attitude
toward the severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the timing and
context of this offer implied a potential response to the Plaintiff’s public advocacy
regarding AHR defects, including statements made on the Top Class Action
website and other forums. This conduct reflects FCA Chrysler’s pattern of
minimizing individual claims to avoid broader accountability for their
defective product and the resulting harm.
The offer of a $2,500 “donation,” presented after the holiday season of
2023, further exacerbated the emotional toll on the Plaintiff and his wife.
Prior to Christmas, the representative conveyed uplifting and sympathetic
messages, such as assuring them not to worry, expressing sorrow, and offering
to help in any way possible. These communications gave the Plaintiff and his
wife hope for a fair settlement resolution in the new year. However, the
nominal amount of the post-holiday offer—framed as a gesture of
sympathy—underscored FCA’s dismissive attitude toward the severity of the
Plaintiff’s injuries and economic losses. The timing of this offer, coupled
with the Plaintiff’s financial hardships leading into the holiday season and
their unmet expectations of resolution, left the Plaintiff and his wife feeling
betrayed by a company they had trusted. This emotional harm is directly
attributable to FCA’s failure to meaningfully address the consequences of their
defective product.
FCA’s Response to Known Defects
In August 2017, FCA began washing AHR striker pins
with alcohol to remove an oil contaminant claimed by FCA and Grammer AG of
causing environmental stress cracking (ESC) in the plastic sled by chemical
reaction, leading to unintentional AHR deployment. FCA’s action suggests that
it was aware of this issue but failed to implement adequate safety measures in
vehicles already on the market, including the Plaintiff’s vehicle, purchased on
December 31, 2016. (Costa Opinion for cert)
Despite
making some efforts to mitigate known issues, such as washing internal AHR
components with alcohol, FCA failed to address the fundamental risks inherent
in the AHR design, including the potential for unintended deployment and
associated injuries. These foreseeable risks highlight the availability of
safer, non-active alternatives, as detailed below.
Foreseeable
Risks and Safer Non-Active Alternatives
Defendants were aware of the risks posed by the AHR system’s spring-loaded
mechanism, including its potential for unintended deployment. These risks were
foreseeable given internal testing failures, warranty claims, and consumer
complaints spanning over a decade, as revealed in Costa v. FCA U.S. LLC.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to implement design changes to
mitigate these hazards.
Safer alternatives were available at the time of
the AHR system’s development, including non-active systems like Volvo’s
Whiplash Protection System (WHIPS). WHIPS achieves effective whiplash
protection through a fixed design that integrates the headrest with the
seatback to absorb collision energy without requiring moving parts or active
deployment mechanisms. Studies demonstrate that WHIPS reduced neck injury claim
rates by 49% compared to earlier Volvo models. By eliminating moving parts,
non-active systems like WHIPS entirely remove the risk of unintended deployment
while achieving the intended safety objectives.
In contrast, the Grammer AG AHR system has faced
scrutiny for unintended deployments, including class action lawsuits alleging
injuries such as head and neck injuries. Additionally, news reports from
various states have highlighted numerous incidents of concussions facial, hand
laceration and treatments for anxiety claims from random and unexpected AHR
deployments, further underscoring the risks associated with the design.
The risk of such injuries is exacerbated by the
instructions provided in Defendants' owner’s manuals. Manuals describe how to
adjust the AHR by pulling or pushing the device, yet fail to warn users of the
potential deployments during adjustments. Defendants’ own manuals vaguely
caution that body parts, such as a hand, could “accidentally” trigger
deployment and cause injury. Despite this warning, the manuals do not provide
clear guidance on avoiding injury or ensuring safe handling, nor do they
distinguish between standard headrests and the more sensitive AHR mechanism.
This contradictory messaging—claiming a “virtually
zero chance of harm” from a random AHR deployment while simultaneously warning
of potential deployment and injury from “accidental” contact—further
demonstrates the inherent instability of the design. The likelihood of injuries
such as hand and facial lacerations during routine adjustments or accidental
contact is foreseeable and preventable, had Defendants implemented a safer and
more stable design.
The absence of clear labeling identifying the AHR
system as an active, spring-loaded mechanism exacerbated the foreseeable risks
of accidental deployment. Without proper labeling, Plaintiff was unaware that a
rapidly deploying device capable of triggering a startle response was
positioned directly behind his head. This lack of labeling, coupled with
Defendants’ failure to warn of the dangers, directly contributed to Plaintiff’s
perception of an imminent attack when the device deployed unexpectedly. This
startling effect caused Plaintiff to experience a fight-or-flight response,
resulting in PTSD and ongoing psychological trauma
IV. Failure to Adopt Safer Alternative Design
Safer Design
Alternatives Were Feasible
Defendants were aware of the risks posed by the
AHR system’s spring-loaded mechanism, including the potential for unintended
deployment. These risks were foreseeable based on internal testing failures,
warranty claims, and consumer complaints spanning over a decade, as revealed in
Costa v. FCA U.S. LLC.
Safer and cost-effective alternatives were
available at the time of the AHR system’s development. These alternatives could
have eliminated the risk of unintended deployment while achieving the intended
safety function of mitigating whiplash in rear-end collisions.
1.
Non-Active Systems
Examples of safer alternatives include non-active systems like Volvo’s Whiplash
Protection System (WHIPS). This system integrates the headrest with the
seatback to absorb collision energy without requiring moving parts or active
deployment mechanisms. Studies have shown WHIPS reduced neck injury claims by
49% compared to earlier Volvo models.
2.
Permanently Extended Headrests
The AHR system was intended to “catch” the occupant’s head by supporting and
slowing rearward momentum during a collision, similar to how a parachute slows
a dragster’s speed. A permanently
extended headrest with rearward spring protection could have achieved the same
whiplash protection goals without the need for spring-loaded mechanisms. This
design avoids the inherent risks of unexpected activation and simplifies
manufacturing.
3.
Enhanced Testing Protocols
Industry-standard crash testing protocols, such as those conducted by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), position crash test dummies
heads sufficient distance away from the pre deployed AHR to prevent head
contact until after it has fully deployed. This deployment is so fast after the
rear end impact trigger is activated the full deployment occurs before the
advancing shock wave has any effect upon the heads movement. This suggests that
the design was not intended for the AHR to launch the head forward but to
initiate contact with the occupant’s head, by catching it from close proximity.
Foreseeable risks, including those from accidental
deployments during routine adjustments, were entirely preventable had
Defendants implemented a non-active design or provided clear warnings about the
heightened sensitivity of the AHR mechanism.
User Confusion and Lack of Distinguishable
Markings
As stated in some users manuals and omitted in
others, the AHR system contains no
distinguishable markings or warnings that it is an AHR vs the standard headrest,
creating confusion among users. Vehicle user manuals issued by Defendants
further exacerbate this confusion by combining instructions for adjusting both
standard headrests and the AHR. For example, manuals direct users to adjust the
headrest by pulling it up or down but fail to warn that these actions could
inadvertently trigger deployment. This omission exposes consumers to
significant risks, as accidental deployment while handling the AHR can cause
injury.
This lack of clarity in design and instructions
would likely lead to more numerous reports of injuries from accidental
deployments, highlighting the real-world consequences of Defendants’ inadequate
warnings and flawed design choices. Reports of injuries in news media include
facial and hand lacerations caused by accidental AHR deployment, which
underscores the potential danger posed by vague or misleading guidance.
Defendants' contradictory messaging—simultaneously claiming "virtually
zero chance of harm" while cautioning about the potential for accidental
deployment and injury—demonstrates their awareness of the risks. These warnings
underscore the foreseeability of harm, contradicting any assertion that such
risks were insignificant or unforeseeable.
The absence of clear
warnings or labeling about AHR mechanisms fails to adequately inform consumers
about the heightened risks associated with their use, violating reasonable
consumer safety expectations. These foreseeable risks were entirely preventable
had Defendants implemented a safer and more stable design or provided clear and
consistent warnings within sight of occupants.
Public Awareness Deficiencies and Need for Consumer Education
Despite the Defendants’ knowledge of the risks associated with the Active
Head Restraint (AHR) system, they failed to adequately warn consumers or
provide sufficient information to identify the device or its potential for
unintended deployment. This failure has resulted in a widespread lack of
awareness among vehicle owners about the presence and dangers of the AHR
system.
Since the incident on July
7, 2023, Plaintiff and his wife have spoken with numerous drivers
of vehicles equipped with AHR systems, including individuals in parking lots,
store lines, and delivery personnel. With the exception of one individual, none
were aware of the device’s existence or the risks it poses. This suggests that
Defendants’ omissions have left the vast majority of consumers uninformed and
unprepared for potential malfunctions.
Plaintiff respectfully submits that independent polling or consumer surveys
could substantiate the claim that consumers remain largely unaware of the
dangers associated with AHR systems. Such data would support the assertion that
Defendants failed in their duty to warn and educate the public, as required
under applicable consumer protection and product liability laws.
Defendants Prioritized Cost Over Safety
Despite knowing of these safer alternatives, Defendants opted for a
spring-loaded design that increased the likelihood of injury. The decision to
use this design was driven by cost considerations, as implementing a fixed
headrest or adopting alternative technologies would have required upfront
investment. Defendants’ prioritization of cost savings over consumer safety
demonstrates negligence and a disregard for foreseeable risks.
Testing Revealed AHR Deployment Risks
Defendants’ internal testing revealed the inherent instability of the AHR
system’s spring-loaded design. These tests showed:
The AHR system could deploy
unintentionally under environmental stress or minor vibrations.
The plastic sled components
were prone to environmental stress cracking (ESC), exacerbated by exposure
to certain oils and contaminants.
Dummy testing placed heads at
a distance from the AHR during deployment, but real-world use does not
guarantee this positioning, leading to increased risks of head injuries.
Contradictory Messaging in Consumer Manuals
Defendants compounded these risks by failing to provide adequate warnings or
distinguishing markings in their user manuals. For example:
Manuals instructed users to
adjust the AHR system by pulling or pushing the device but did not warn of
potential accidental deployment.
Warnings that body parts
could "accidentally" trigger deployment were insufficiently
prominent and contradicted claims of a "virtually zero chance of
harm."
This lack of clear communication about the AHR system’s heightened
sensitivity exposed consumers to avoidable risks. Proper labeling or
instructions could have mitigated these hazards.
Public Policy and Consumer Protection Concerns
Public Safety Concerns for
Vulnerable Populations
The Defendant's defective Active Head Restraint (AHR) systems pose
significant risks to vulnerable groups, including elderly drivers, veterans
with PTSD, and individuals with pre-existing spinal conditions. Studies
indicate that a substantial percentage of elderly individuals suffer from
degenerative disc disease or spinal stenosis, conditions that can be
exacerbated by sudden trauma such as unexpected AHR deployment. Similarly,
veterans with PTSD or prior concussions are at increased risk of severe psychological
and physical harm from such incidents. The Defendant's failure to address these
known defects endangers these populations, highlighting a pressing public
safety concern.
B. Challenges Faced by Pro Se Litigants
The Plaintiff's pro se status underscores the systemic challenges that
individual consumers face when seeking justice against large corporations with
extensive legal and financial resources. This significant imbalance often
deters individuals from pursuing valid claims, allowing negligent practices to
persist unchecked. The Plaintiff's inability to secure legal representation,
despite the severity of the injuries sustained, exemplifies the barriers to
justice that many consumers encounter. Intervention by the Arizona Attorney
General is essential to address these disparities, protect public safety, and
ensure that all Arizona
residents have equitable access to justice, regardless of their financial means
or legal representation.
C. Failure to Notify Consumers
FCA’s selective outreach to individual claimants highlights a systemic failure
to notify consumers about known defects in the AHR system. Despite possessing
customer contact information, FCA did not issue widespread warnings or recalls
to inform vehicle owners of the potential dangers. For example, a Chrysler
representative contacted the Plaintiff’s wife directly, apparently using
dealership records from the vehicle’s purchase. This demonstrates that FCA had
the capability to notify consumers but chose not to act, leaving the vast
majority of owners uninformed about the dangers posed by their vehicles. This
omission not only endangers public safety but also reflects a disregard for
consumer rights and transparency. The Arizona Attorney General’s office is
uniquely positioned to investigate FCA’s notification practices and hold the
company accountable for its failure to protect Arizona residents from preventable harm.
Broader Implications
FCA’s selective outreach and failure to notify the broader consumer base about
the risks associated with defective AHR systems reflect a systemic disregard
for public safety. Despite having access to dealership records and the ability
to contact consumers directly, FCA chose not to issue widespread warnings or
recalls, leaving countless drivers and passengers at risk.
This omission is particularly egregious given that many vehicles are sold
used or without manuals, leaving subsequent owners and passengers unaware of
potential hazards. Additionally, the lack of visible markings or warnings on
AHR systems exacerbates the danger, as drivers and passengers may inadvertently
rest their heads on the AHRs without realizing the associated risks.
FCA’s failure to act demonstrates the urgent need for systemic changes,
including mandatory notifications, improved labeling, and enhanced consumer
education to mitigate the risks posed by defective AHR systems.
V. Causes of Action
Count 1: Strict Product Liability
Defendants are strictly liable for the physical
injuries and lasting harm sustained by the Plaintiff due to the defective and
unreasonably dangerous design and manufacture of the Active Head Restraint
(AHR) system. Under the eggshell skull doctrine, Defendants are fully
liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries, including those aggravated by pre-existing
conditions. This doctrine ensures that a Defendant must compensate a Plaintiff
for the full extent of injuries caused by their negligence, regardless of the
Plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerabilities.
The Defendants are strictly liable for the
injuries sustained by the Plaintiff due to the defective AHR system, which
caused:
1.
Initial Hyperacute Flexion Injury: The
rapid deployment of the AHR forced the Plaintiff’s neck into sudden, excessive
flexion, worsening pre-existing cervical degeneration and triggering severe
radicular symptoms.
2.
Fight-or-Flight Exacerbation: The
startling nature of the event caused the Plaintiff to react instinctively in
self-defense, twisting violently and further aggravating cervical instability,
which contributed to the progression of spinal and neurological damage.
These injuries are corroborated by:
·
Comparative imaging across August 2023
(pre-incident), April 2024 (post-surgical), and November 2024 (post-incident
progression).
·
The professional opinion of Dr. Simpson, the
Plaintiff's neurosurgeon, who identified a causal relationship between the
trauma and the escalation of symptoms.
As detailed in Dr. Simpson's July 2024 letter
(Exhibit A), the post-surgical CT findings (Exhibit B), and the November
2024 cervical MRI (Exhibit C), the AHR deployment caused a rapid worsening
of the Plaintiff's condition. These documents collectively establish the
Defendants' liability for the Plaintiff's injuries under Arizona law.
Defective Design
The AHR system was unreasonably dangerous due to its spring-loaded deployment
mechanism, which posed a risk of unintended activation. Safer, feasible
alternatives, such as a permanently extended headrest design, existed at the
time of manufacture, and would have eliminated this risk while simplifying
manufacturing.
Count 2: Negligence
Negligent Design and Omission
Defendants breached their duty to
design a safe product by opting for an AHR mechanism prone to unintentional
deployment. Expert testimony in Costa v. FCA U.S. LLC indicates that FCA was
aware of the startle and distraction risks associated with AHR deployment, yet
failed to implement safer, cost-effective designs like a permanently extended
headrest or to adequately warn consumers of the associated dangers. This breach
in duty was a direct cause of Plaintiff’s physical and psychological injuries.
Defendants failed to fulfill their duty to
adequately warn users of the AHR system’s risks, including the potential for
sudden and unexpected deployment. The absence of clear labeling or warnings
identifying the AHR as an "active" device contributed to Plaintiff’s
injuries. Without any indication that a spring-loaded, rapidly deploying
mechanism was situated directly behind his head, Plaintiff was startled by the
sudden noise and impact of the device's deployment. This unexpected event
caused Plaintiff to perceive an imminent attack, triggering a fight-or-flight
response that resulted in PTSD and associated psychological harm.
Defendants’ omission of adequate warnings, despite
their own owner’s manuals acknowledging the potential for accidental deployment
and injury, directly contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. This failure to warn
or label violated Defendants’ duty of care, causing both physical and
psychological harm to Plaintiff.
Failure to Act in Good Faith
As
part of their duty to exercise reasonable care and mitigate harm caused by
their defective product, Defendant FCA US LLC had an opportunity to alleviate
the Plaintiff’s suffering by providing financial assistance for alternative
medical treatments. These treatments were urgently needed to address injuries
directly caused by the defective Active Head Restraint (AHR) system.
Despite
the Plaintiff’s explicit request for assistance and the Defendant’s
acknowledgment of the defect and the severity of the injuries, FCA US LLC
refused to act in good faith. Instead, the Defendant offered a nominal $2,500
“donation,” an amount insufficient to address even basic medical needs, which
the Plaintiff reasonably declined. This refusal delayed necessary care,
worsened the Plaintiff’s condition, and caused further physical, emotional, and
financial harm.
The
Defendant’s inaction in the face of clear opportunities to mitigate damages
demonstrates a breach of their duty of care and highlights their prioritization
of minimizing liability over addressing foreseeable harm caused by their
defective product.
Count 3: Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices
Unfair or Deceptive Conduct by FCA
FCA’s conduct in designing, manufacturing, and marketing the Active Head
Restraint (AHR) system constitutes unfair or deceptive practices. Defendants
failed to disclose known risks associated with the AHR system’s spring-loaded
mechanism, including its tendency for unintentional deployment and the injuries
caused by such incidents. This omission misled consumers into believing the AHR
system was safe for routine use, despite FCA’s internal knowledge of defects
and warranty claims dating back over a decade.
Refusal to Provide Meaningful Remedies
Defendant FCA US LLC engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices by refusing to provide meaningful assistance for medical
treatments urgently needed by the Plaintiff. Despite acknowledging the defect
in their Active Head Restraint (AHR) system and the injuries caused by its
deployment, FCA US LLC offered a nominal $2,500 “donation” rather than a
legitimate remedy for the Plaintiff’s medical needs.
This offer was framed as a gesture of sympathy,
but it was insufficient to cover even basic treatment costs and failed to
address the Plaintiff’s suffering. By offering an inadequate remedy while fully
aware of the severity of the injuries, FCA misrepresented their willingness to
take responsibility for the harm caused by their defective product.
Furthermore, the Defendant’s conduct reflects a
broader strategy to minimize liability and avoid accountability, as evidenced
by their refusal to settle in good faith despite their knowledge of the
Plaintiff’s inability to afford alternative treatments. This pattern of
behavior constitutes an unfair trade practice, as it deprives injured consumers
of the support necessary to mitigate damages and recover from harm directly
caused by the Defendant’s defective product.
Contradictory
and Misleading Statements in Manuals
FCA claimed and still claims to the effect “virtually zero chance of harm” from
the AHR system, yet their owner’s manuals include warnings that body parts,
such as a hand, could trigger accidental deployment and injury. These manuals
failed to distinguish the AHR from standard headrests or provide sufficient
guidance to ensure safe handling. This contradictory messaging created
confusion among consumers and downplayed the risks associated with routine adjustments
or contact with the device. The absence of clear labeling or warnings
identifying the AHR system as an active, spring-loaded mechanism constitutes a
deceptive omission that misled consumers, including Plaintiff, about the nature
and risks of the device. This omission directly contributed to Plaintiff’s
misunderstanding of the AHR system’s potential for sudden deployment. Moreover, Defendants’ public claims as well
verbal statement to Plantiff simultaneously claim that the AHR system poses to
the effect there is virtually zero chance of harm while warning that accidental
contact with the device could result in injury. This contradictory messaging
demonstrates Defendants’ awareness of the risks but their failure to adequately
disclose them to consumers. By failing to provide clear labeling or warnings,
Defendants engaged in deceptive practices that caused Plaintiff to suffer
physical injuries and psychological harm.
Failure to Warn
FCA’s omission of explicit warnings about the dangers of excessive force when
adjusting the AHR or the likelihood of accidental deployment constitutes a
failure to disclose material information necessary for safe use. By failing to
adequately inform consumers, FCA deprived them of critical information
necessary for making informed safety decisions. .
Violation of Consumer Protection Laws
Defendants’ conduct violates the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. § 44-1522),
which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in connection with the sale or
advertisement of merchandise. FCA’s misleading statements, omissions, and
failure to warn about the risks of the AHR system represent deceptive practices
that caused harm to Plaintiff and other consumers.
By failing to provide adequate warnings or distinguish the
AHR from standard headrests, FCA’s omissions misled consumers about the true
risks of the system. These deceptive practices violate R.S. § 44-1522, which prohibits
such omissions in the marketing and sale of consumer products.
VI. Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants as follows:
a. For general and special damages in an amount to
be proven at trial;
b. For current and future medical expenses, costs
of care, and compensation for emotional and psychological harm, including PTSD,
anxiety, and depression caused by the incident and its aftermath;
c. For pain and suffering damages, including loss
of enjoyment of life, such as the inability to engage in meaningful activities
like playing the guitar, artistic self expressive activities or participating
fully in professional and personal pursuits;
d. For any other relief the Court deems just and
proper;
e. For punitive damages to the extent permitted by
law, as a result of Defendants’ repeated disregard for consumer safety,
including their pattern of unfair acts or practices as demonstrated in Costa v.
FCA and their ongoing criminal probation;
f. For damages and penalties as allowed under the
Arizona Consumer Fraud Act for Defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade
practices;
g. For damages related to Plaintiff’s economic
losses, including the inability to pursue business ventures within Arizona’s
state-regulated cannabis industry, caused by Defendants’ defective product and
failure to warn;
h. Injunctive Relief Related to Consumer
Protections:
·
An order requiring Defendants to:
o
Establish a consumer assistance program to
address ongoing risks and injuries associated with defective AHR systems;
o
Provide financial support for independent legal
representation of injured parties to balance the resource disparity in pursuing
claims;
o
Notify all current and subsequent vehicle owners
of known AHR defects using dealership records;
o
Implement mandatory labeling and guidance for
AHR systems similar to SRS airbag warnings;
o
Provide consumers with updated safety
instructions explicitly addressing risks of random deployment.
i. An order recommending that the Arizona Attorney
General investigate Defendants’ practices and provide support to Arizona
residents who, like the Plaintiff, face significant challenges in securing
legal representation and pursuing justice against large corporations with
substantial legal resources;
j. For damages related to emotional distress and
psychological harm exacerbated by Defendants’ conduct, including the
Plaintiff’s inability to celebrate Christmas with his family due to financial
and emotional hardship caused by the defective AHR system and Defendants’
dismissive response;
k. An order requiring Defendants to implement
consumer notification programs to ensure all vehicle owners are informed about
known AHR defects and the availability of safer replacement options;
l. For compensation for the necessity of a
three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and associated
medical treatments, as required due to the trauma caused by the AHR deployment;
m. For financial damages related to the
Plaintiff’s loss of ability to manage pre-existing lumbar and cervical
conditions due to the aggravation and progression caused by the AHR deployment,
leading to additional medical costs, physical pain, and emotional suffering;
n. For declaratory relief establishing that the
Defendants’ failure to warn and defective design of the AHR system constitute
violations of Arizona law, requiring immediate corrective measures to prevent
further harm to consumers;
O. For future monitoring costs for medical
conditions related to the injuries caused by the defective AHR system,
including but not limited to neurological assessments, spinal imaging, and
ongoing pain management.
P. For punitive damages:
For punitive damages to the extent permitted by
law, as a result of Defendant FCA US LLC’s disregard for consumer safety and
their failure to provide financial assistance for necessary treatments after
acknowledging the defect and the Plaintiff’s injuries.
Q. For injunctive relief related to consumer
assistance programs:
For an order requiring Defendants to establish
a consumer assistance program to address ongoing risks and injuries associated
with defective AHR systems. This program should include financial support for
alternative medical treatments and legal assistance for injured parties to
balance the disparity in resources when pursuing claims.
ADDENDA TO COMPLAINT
ADDENDUM A: JUSTIFICATION FOR
JURISDICTION AND VENUE IN STATE COURT
Local
Connection to the Claims
This case arises from injuries sustained by Plaintiff in , where the defective
product was in use. Plaintiff is a resident of , and the economic and medical
consequences of the injuries have primarily affected Arizona-based systems,
including the state Medicaid program.
Economic Impact Specific to
Plaintiff’s injuries directly impaired his ability to complete a significant
business venture under ’s state-regulated medical cannabis framework. This
venture was governed by law and required
Plaintiff’s active participation as a licensed professional within the
state. state courts are best positioned
to assess the regulatory, economic, and legal impacts of these losses. FCA’s
longstanding unfair practices, as evidenced in Costa v. FCA, disproportionately
impact residents who rely on the state’s
Medicaid system for medical treatments caused by defective AHR systems.
Moreover, the challenges faced by consumers, including Plaintiff, in pursuing
legal action underscore the necessity of
courts to ensure accountability and equitable remedies.
Judicial Efficiency and State Interest
courts have a vested interest in
adjudicating claims related to product safety and consumer protection for its
residents. Resolving this matter in
state court ensures consistency with similar claims and promotes
judicial efficiency by keeping cases with substantial local ties within the
state judiciary.
Specialized Considerations for Local Jurors
residents are directly impacted by the
safety and reliability of products sold in their state. Jurors drawn from the
local population have a vested interest in addressing public safety issues
affecting consumers. courts, therefore, represent the most
appropriate forum for adjudicating these claims.
Avoidance of Federal Court Challenges Related to Cannabis
Plaintiff’s economic losses are tied to his role in ’s cannabis industry, which
operates under state law. Federal court, bound by federal prohibitions on
marijuana, may not fully appreciate or address the intricacies of Plaintiff’s
losses under ’s legal framework. Retaining jurisdiction in state court avoids potential conflicts of law
or misinterpretation of state-specific regulatory impacts.
Corporate Misconduct with
Implications:
FCA’s history of unfair practices, as demonstrated in Costa v. FCA, and their
current criminal probation reflect a systemic pattern of conduct that
places consumers at significant risk. courts are well-positioned to address these
state-specific impacts and ensure accountability.
ADDENDUM B: Eggshell Skull Doctrine in
Under law, the eggshell skull
doctrine ensures that a defendant is fully liable for a plaintiff’s injuries
from worsening or aggravation, even if the plaintiff had pre-existing
conditions that made them more susceptible to harm. In this case, the
Plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative disc disease and congenital spinal
stenosis were significantly aggravated by the AHR deployment, causing severe
and lasting injuries. These injuries are compensable in full under ’s legal
standards, as the Defendant’s defective product caused the harm, regardless of
the Plaintiff’s vulnerability.
ADDENDUM
C: Consumer Challenges and FCA’s Unfair Practices
The Plaintiff’s inability to secure legal representation highlights the
barriers faced by individuals pursuing claims against FCA Chrysler, given the
high litigation costs and the corporation’s extensive resources. This disparity
creates systemic inequities that are compounded by FCA’s pattern of unfair
practices, as demonstrated in Costa v. FC Despite being found guilty of
engaging in unfair acts, FCA continues to employ practices that mislead
consumers and evade responsibility for foreseeable safety risks. Addressing
these systemic issues is essential to ensuring consumer protection and
corporate accountability in .
ADDENDUM D: of Plaintiff’s Claim
from Class Actions
While
the Plaintiff is aware of class action lawsuits, including D’Antoni v. FCA US
LLC, seeking to encompass claims related to the defective Active Head Restraint
(AHR) system, Plaintiff respectfully asserts that this claim warrants separate
consideration. The injuries sustained by the Plaintiff are distinct in their
severity, including but not limited to a traumatic brain injury (TBI),
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the necessity of a three-level cervical
fusion as well aggravation to lumbar spine condition. These injuries and the
resulting economic damages exceed the scope and typical recoveries anticipated
in class action settlements.
Class
actions serve to address systemic issues but often fail to fully account for
claimants with extraordinary injuries. Plaintiff’s claim, which involves
profound physical, psychological, and economic harm, requires individualized
adjudication to ensure full and fair compensation. Consolidating this matter
into a class action would not adequately address the Plaintiff’s unique
circumstances, nor provide the equitable remedies needed to redress the
significant damages caused by Defendants’ negligence.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim underscores distinct public policy and
consumer protection concerns specific to residents, including the impact on
state Medicaid resources and the economic harm tied to ’s cannabis industry.
For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court allow the
claim to proceed independently and adjudicate it based on its specific merits.
Dated this [Date] day of [Month],
[Year].
Respectfully submitted,
[ Signature (if filing by
hand)]
Emory Caudill
