Michael J. Scanlon, Plaintiff-Respondent v. General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division and I. J…

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged defect in the Chevrolet Impala existed while the vehicle was in the control of the manufacturer or retailer. The Court explained that the plaintiff’s expert testimony was speculative, the fast‑idle cam was shown to be intact, and the plaintiff did not negate alternative causes of the accident. Justice Pashman dissented, arguing that the evidence permitted a reasonable jury inference of a defect and that the motion should have been denied.