IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MATHEW T. HOFFMAN § § : Plaintiff § CJ -2021 - 48254 vs. § CASENO. § VOLVO CARS OF NORTH 5 AMERICA LLC, § VOLVO CAR USA LLC, § VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA § FILED IN DISTRICT COURT LLC, 8 OKLAHOMA COUNTY VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, § JIMMY THONGMANY, § NOV - 9 2021 § KEN Defendants § RIGS Ware 126 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Now come MATHEW T. HOFFMAN, hereinafter called Plaintiff, complaining of VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLVO CAR USA LLC, VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA LLG, VOLVO CAR CORPORATION (hereinafter “Volvo” )and JIMMY THONGMANY (hereinafter “Thongmany”), Defendants, and for cause of action would respeetfully show the Court and Jury the following facts: I. PARTIES 1.1 Mathew Hoffman is a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and brings suit in his individual capacity. 12 Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. is a foreign corporation formed under the Jaws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at IVolvo Drive, Rockleigh, NJ 07647-2507, ana doing business in Oklahoma. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent for service of process in Oklahoma, ‘The Corporation Company, 1833 S. Morgan Rd., Oklahoma City, OK 73128.13 Volvo Car USA LLC is a foreign corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1Volvo Drive, Rockleigh, NJ 07647- 2507, and doing business in Oklahoma. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent for service of process in Oklahoma, The Corporation Company, 1833 8. Morgan Rd, Oklahoma City, OK 73128. 14 — Volvo Group North America, Inc. is a foreign corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 7900 National Service Road, Greensboro, NC 27409, and doing business in Oklahoma, Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent for service of process in Oklahoma, ‘The Corporation Company, 1833 S. Morgan Rd, Oklahoma City, OK 73128. 15 Volvo Car Corporation is a Swedish corporation, with its principal place of business at Gropegardsgatan 2, 417 15 Goteborg, Sweden, and doing business in Oklahoma. Defendant may be served with process pursuant to The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, commonly referred to as “The Hague Convention.” 16 Jimmy Thongmany is a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and may be served with process at 2729 NW 41* Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73112-3710. I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 21 Atall times relevant to this suit, Thongmany was an Oklahoma resident and resided in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. As such, venue is proper in this county pursuant to 12 OK Stat § 1653B (2014). 2.2 The accident that forms the basis for this lawsuit occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. As such venue is also proper in this county pursuant to OK Stat § 141 Plainti's Original Petition 2(2014) 23 This Court has jurisdiction because all Defendants committed tortious acts within the state of Oklahoma, and regularly derive substantial revenue from commerce in Oklahoma, and in Oklahoma County, such that the Court may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States 24 — This is a product liability and negligence action resulting from the injuries to and damages suffered by Mat Hoffman, The accident occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, which falls within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Further, the product defect in the vehicle in question caused injuries that occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. As such, jurisdiction is proper as to all parties. 25 ‘The amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Im. FACTS 3.1 On May 29, 2021 Mat Hoffman and Jaci Hoffman were traveling to a graduation party in their 2015 Volvo V60 on1235 highway in Oklahoma City. Jaci Hoffman was the driver and Mat Hoffman was the front seat passenger. Traffic in the area had come toa stop due toa construction project. Mrs. Hoffman slowed for traffic and came to a stop along with the flow of other traffic. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman were properly seat belted at the time. After coming to a stop, the Hoffman vehicle was suddenly, and without warning, struck by another vehicle in the rear. This vehicle, a Chevrolet Van, was driven by Jimmy Thongmany. Below is a photograph of the Volvo V60 involved in the accident. Plaintiffs Original Petition 332 Asa result of the rear end collision, Mr. Hoffman’s seat collapsed and he was ejected into the rear seat. Mr. Hoffman's head slammed into the hard plastic portion of the rear seat which resulted ina traumatic brain injury and skull fracture. All seats should be designed to yield in a controlled manner to protect the occupant during a collision However, Mr. Hoffman's seat did more than simply yield. It completely collapsed, and allowed him to be ejected into the rear seat, despite wearing his seatbelt. In essence, he was an unrestrait wed passenger in a rear end collision because of the Volvo V60's defective seats. 33 The photograph below shows the difference in rearward movement between Mr. Hoffman’ passenger seat and Mrs. Hoffman's driver seat. Piainti’s Oxiginal Petition 4Mrs. Hoffman's seat moved rearward in the rear end collision, but it was prevented from completely collapsing, because it was held up by the rear seat which moved upward and stopped its rearward movement. She did not suffer any serious injuries from her seat failure because her seat was not able to completely collapse. On the other hand, Mr Hoffman's seat, collapsed completely. Clearly, Mr. Hoffman's seat did not provide an effective restraint or protection. 34 Since the late 1980s, automobile manufacturers have known that rearward rolation of front seats in rear impact collision effects both front and rear seated passengers. In 1992 and 2001, the television program 60 Minutes featured segments on the seatback Plainti’s Original Petition 3rigidity issue. Knowing the history with the seatback strength issue and while conceding that federal testing standards are inadequate, automobile manufacturers routinely test for seatback strength beyond federal standards codified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207. ‘The reason they do this is because it is well known than a lawn chair will pass this standard. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST VOLVO STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY 4.1 At the time the subject Volvo V60 was sold into the stream of commerce in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Volvo was in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling vehicles to the general public throughout the United States, as well as within the state of Oklahoma through duly appointed retailers and distributors. Further, at the time of sale, the subject Volvo V60 contained defects that rendered it unreasonably dangerous when used as intended by Volvo. Moreover, from the time the Volvo V60-was sold to the time of the accident, it was not altered in any manner and was in substantially the same condition as it was at the time it was sold. 42 The subject Volvo V60 was unreasonably dangerous because its seats did not adequately protect Mr. Hoffman during a reasonably foreseeable rear end collision. To be sure, Mr. Hoffman’s seat collapsed, allowed him to be ejected into the back seat despite wearing a seat belt, and suffer a traumatic brain injury. As a result, the Volvo V60 was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product's characteristics. No reasonable person, inchiding Mat Hoffman, would have expected his seat to collapse during a reasonably foreseeable rear end collision. Tobe sure, Paints Original Petition 6his seat, was more likely than would be expected by an ordinary consumer, to cause the damages suffered by Mr. Hoffman. Consequently, the Volvo V60 was not reasonably fit for the ordinary puzpose for which it was intended, that is, transporting persons on public roadways and protecting them during reasonably foreseeable accidents. A. Design Defect 43 — The subject Volvo V60 was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its seats did not adequately protect Mr. Hoffman during a reasonably foreseeable rear end collision. As a result, the Volvo V60 was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product's characteristics. ‘This defect was a producing cause of Mr. Hoffman's injuries. B. Marketing defect 44 — The subject Volvo V60 was defective because it did not provide adequate warnings of its dangerous characteristics and did not provide adequate instructions for its safe use sufficient to inform an ordinary user of the risk of harm and the risk of harm was not one that an ordinary user would reasonably expect. Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman did not know that their seats would collapse in a rear end collision and that they could be ejected into the back seat even if they were wearing their seat belts. Volvo did not provide any wamings which communicated this dangerous defect or the extent or seriousness of the harm which could result from it, As a result, the Volvo V60 was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinay user or consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the product's characteristics. This defect was a producing cause of Mr. Hoffman’s injuries, Plaintiff's Original Petition 7C. Manufacturing defect 45 — The subject Volvo V60 was defective because it contained a manufacturing defect at the time it entered the stream of commerce, The Volvo V60's front passenger seat and restraint system deviated from Volvo's planned specifications or planned output in ferms of quality or construction, rendering it unreasonably dangerous, ‘The manufacturing defect allowed a front seat passenger to be ejected during a reasonably foreseeable accident. As a result, the Volvo V60 was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user ot consumer who purchased it with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the produet’s characteristics. This defect was a producing cause of Mr. Hoffman's injuries, D. Breach of Implied Warranty 4.6 At the time that the subject Volvo V60 was sold, it was defective and not of the quality generally sold in the marketplace or suitable for its intended purposes. Volvo's breach of these warranties were a producing cause of Mr. Hoffman's injuries NEGLIGENCE 47 Asa result of the above mentioned conduct and because of the conduct described herein, Volvo by and through its employees, representatives, and agents, committed acts of omission and commission, which collectively and severally, constituted negligence, negligence per se, and recklessness which were a proximate cause of the injuries to Mr. Hoffman, the physical pain, mental anguish and damages he suffered. 48 — Volvo was negligent in manufacturing, designing, and failing to warn regarding the subject Volvo V60 and that negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries in question. Plaintif's Oxiginal Petition 8GROSS NEGLIGENCE, 49 Volvo knew of the problems with the seat, seat back, and occupant restraint system in the subject Volvo V60 and other Volvo vehicles using the same or similar components. With this knowledge Volvo chose to ignore those problems, and acted with conscious indifference and gross disregard to the public and Mr. Hoffman. ‘The injuries sustained by Mr. Hoffman were attributable to conduct by Volvo that reflects a reckless disregard for the public’s safety. Volvo was aware of the defect and the likelihood that the injury would result from it. Volvo had the ability to remedy the defect but chose not to do 0. V. NEGLIGENCE OF JIMMY THONGMANY 5.1 At the time of the accident, Jimmy Thongmany had a duty to operate his vehicle in the same manner as an ordinary and prudent driver would have operated it under the same or similar circumstances. Mr. Thongmany failed in his performance of that duty, and such failure was a contributing cause to the accident in question, ‘VI. DAMAGES 6.1 Inthisaceident, Mr. Hoffman's seatback collapsed and he was ejected into the rear seat where he struck his head resulting in a skull fracture and a traumatic brain injury Asa direct and proximate result of the incident Mr. Hoffman has incurred damages, which include: 1. Physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past; 2. Physical pain and mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, Mr Hoffman will sustain in the fature; 3. Loss of earnings sustained in the past; Plaintiff's Original Petition 94. Loss of earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, Mr. Hoffman will sustain in the future; 5. Physical impairment sustained in the past; 6. Physical impairment that, in reasonable probability, Mr. Hoffman will sustain in the future; 7. Medical care expenses in the past; 8. Medical care expenses that, in reasonable probability, Mr. Hoffman will incur in the future, 62 Mr. Hoffman has been, and will be, damaged, in a sum deemed just and fair by the jury. Nearly all of the elements of damages for personal injury are unliquidated and, therefore, not subject to precise computation. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages in an amount found by the jury to be supported by the evidence and appropriate under all of the circumstances. VI. PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law. VII. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff has requested a trial by jury and have paid the requisite fee. IX PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that on final hearing of this cause, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendants for actual damages and punitive damages, ina sum deemed just and fair by the jury, such suum being within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; for Plaintif?s Original Petition 10costs of suit; for interest on the judgment; for pre-judgment interest; and for such other and further relief, in law or in equity, to which the Plaintiff may showy just entitlement. Respectfully submitted, WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN: & BLAIR, LLP. 123 North Carrizo Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 885-7500 \ (361) 885-0487 jwigington(@Migrum.com Ross W. Evans (Pro Hac Vice pending) [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plains Original Petition i