—
There will be no new Chrysler headrest lawsuit trial after the judge ruled the evidence doesn’t support it.
Plaintiff Jason Nuwer filed the Fiat Chrysler class action lawsuit by alleging the active head restraints are dangerous and can injure occupants.
The active headrest is supposed to be a safety device to protect occupants from head and neck injuries in a rear-end crash. The headrest, manufactured by Grammer, activates in a split-second to propel the head cushion forward in a crash to help prevent whiplash.
The headrest lawsuit alleges cheap plastic can break and cause the active head restraint to deploy without a crash.
The class action alleges the headrests are defective in these FCA vehicles:
- 2010-2018 Dodge Journey
- 2010-2011 Dodge Nitro
- 2010-2012 Jeep Liberty
- 2010-2017 Jeep Patriot or Compass
- 2010-2012 Dodge Caliber
- 2010-2018 Dodge Caravan
- 2011-2018 Dodge Ram C/V
- 2011-2018 Dodge Durango
- 2011-2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee
- 2010-2014 Chrysler Sebring
- 2010-2014 Dodge Avenger
- 2011-2018 Chrysler Town & Country
- 2011-2018 Chrysler 200
- 2011-2018 Chrysler 300
The Florida judge allowed the headrest lawsuit to proceed to trial in January 2024, but the jury verdict said Chrysler did not have to pay a cent in damages. The jury did find FCA had violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. However, the jury was also asked this question.
“Was FCA US LLC’s deceptive or unfair act or practice the cause of the actual damages sustained by each class member?”
The jury answered “no” to that question, and the trial ended.
Chrysler Headrest Lawsuit — No New Trial
Plaintiff Nuwer filed a motion for a new Chrysler headrest lawsuit trial by claiming the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The plaintiff also argues the jury didn’t hear evidence the headrest manufacturer switched from oil-coated pins to stainless steel pins. The plaintiff also complains he should not have been required to prove a headrest design defect.
The jury awarded zero damages during the trial, but a damages expert for the plaintiff argues it would cost about $1,400 to replace each headrest in the Chrysler vehicles, a cost of more than $8 billion.
“New trials should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum, the verdict is against the great – not merely the greater – weight of the evidence.” — Judge Raag Singhal
The judge rejected the motion for a new headrest trial for multiple reasons.
The Chrysler unintentional headrest deployment rate is “exceedingly (and shockingly) low (less than 1%),” and no class action member testified to being injured or unable to sell their Fiat Chrysler vehicle.
In addition, even if a headrest did deploy, the judge notes how it is compared to the “force of a confetti-filled eggshell.”
“And, strikingly, Plaintiff Nuwer testified he had no problems with his vehicle, never thought about suing FCA until he was approached by a lawyer at a party, and at the time of the trial, his wife was still driving the vehicle.” — Judge Singhal
According to the judge, FCA also created a warranty extension to repair any headrest that deployed.
“Given the extremely low rate of failure of the AHRs and the low impact the AHRs presented to consumers, the jury’s finding on damages is supported by the manifest weight of evidence. This is not a ground for a new trial.” — Judge Singhal
The Chrysler headrest lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: Nuwer, et al., v. FCA US LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Gilligan, Gooding, Batsel & Anderson, and Santiago Burger LLP.
In a separate Chrysler headrest lawsuit trial in Boston, the plaintiffs told the jury FCA should be forced to pay about $120 million to vehicle owners, but Chrysler argued most of the owners never had any headrest problems during years of ownership.
The Boston jury returned a verdict which said FCA had not harmed customers and didn’t have to pay a cent in damages.