2013-00146684-CU-PL

Donald Ernest Gueffroy vs. Audi AG

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike Punitive Damage Claims

Filed By: Yates, Gary S.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc’s (“Volkswagen”) motion to strike the
punitive damages allegations and relate prayer from the complaint of Plaintiffs E.
Donald and Eileen C. Gueffroy (collectively “Plaintiffs”) is DENIED.

This is a products liability/negligence case. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Gueffroy’s vehicle
was rear-ended and that the driver’s seat collapsed rearward. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Gueffory was rendered a paraplegic as a result. Plaintiffs have sued Volkswagen and
others for strict products liability, negligent products liability and negligence/negligent
entrustment. Plaintiffs allege that each of the defendants played a role in the design,
manufacture, distribution, marketing, etc. of his vehicle (an Audi). They further allege
that all the defendants were aware that the vehicle was unsafe and that they could
have taken action that would have prevented Mr. Gueffroy’s injuries, which were
foreseeable. According to Plaintiffs, the defendants nonetheless continued to design,
manufacture, distribute and market his vehicle and vehicles like it without regard for
the grave, foreseeable danger and without providing any warnings of the danger.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants purposely ignored the danger to Mr. Gueffroy and
others in order to advance their pecuniary interests. Volkswagen now moves to strike
the punitive damages allegations and related prayer associated with the first and
second causes of action.

Volkwagen argues that the motion should be granted because Plaintiffs’ allegations of
conduct warranting an award of punitive damages lack the required factual specificity.
The court disagrees. Plaintiffs have given concrete examples of the way in which the
defendants became aware of the allegedly grave, foreseeable and avoidable dangers
associated with the Mr. Gueffroy’s vehicle, and Plaintiffs have alleged that the
defendants intentionally turned a blind eye to these dangers solely to maximize profits.
Such allegations suffice to overcome a pleading challenge.

Volkswagen’s cases do not command a different conclusion. The court in McDonnell
v. American Trust Company (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 296, 298-300 held that allegations
that a landlord’s knowing failure to repair unsafe conditions that could have caused
injury did not support a claim for punitive damages. Unlike the plaintiffs in McDonnell,
Plaintiffs in the instant case allege that the defendants knew that the front seat in Mr.
Gueffroy’s vehicle would not sustain a modest rear-end collision. (See Compl., ¶ 18-
B.) Plaintiffs’ allegations thus can be construed to establish conduct knowingly leading
to a probable injury, which that was not present in McDonnell. McDonnell is therefore
inapposite.

G.D. Searle & Company v. Superior Court [“Searle”] (App. 3 Dist. 1975) 49 Cal.App.3d
22, does not assist Volkswagen either. Like McDonnell, Searle involved allegations
that a defendant was aware of possible–not probable–injuries as a result of its
product. (See 49 Cal.App.3d at 27.) Thus, whereas the Searle court observed that
“conscious disregard of safety …may justify an exemplary damage award when
nondeliberate injury is alleged[,]” (id. at 32), it held that the plaintiff there had not
alleged enough to support such an award because she alleged that the defendant
knew its product “could safely do the jobs.” (Id.) Plaintiffs’ allegations in the case at
bench do not concede that Mr. Gueffroy’s vehicle likewise could have performed safely
during a rear-end collision.

Finally, the court notes Volkswagen’s argument that the punitive damages allegations
against it should be stricken because Plaintiffs’ allegations lump all the defendants
together. Thus, Volkswagen argues that there are no punitive damages allegations
that are aimed solely at it. The court’s review of Volkswagen’s authorities does not
reveal a holding that a plaintiff may not allege punitive damages against multiple
defendants by way of common allegations. Accordingly, the court rejects
Volkswagen’s contrary argument.

The motion is denied. Volkwagen is directed to file and serve its answer no later than October 11, 2013.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.