2006 Saturn Vue 1 Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

First GM ignition switch trial dismissed

Robert Scheuer has agreed to dismiss his ignition switch claims against General Motors to bring a sudden stop to the first federal trial over the automaker's faulty parts. The lawsuit was the first of six cases that were a bellwether to set a precedent in the complaints. Scheuer didn't receive any financial settlement from GM, according to Reuters. Scheuer alleged that he was injured when his 2003 Saturn Ion went off the road and hit the tree. The airbag didn't deploy, which Scheuer claimed was the result of the faulty ignition switch. GM originally attempted to dismiss the trial over a lack of evidence, but US District Judge Jesse Furman set a January 11 start date for the case. During the trial, GM's attorneys accused Scheuer and his wife of lying and presented evidence of an allegedly altered check stub that they used to purchase a house. Scheuer's defense had claimed that the family was evicted from the home after memory loss from the accident caused Robert to lose the down payment check. After the allegations, Furman pushed for a settlement. He called the trial an "outlier" and "almost worthless as a bellwether case," according to Bloomberg. The next of the six trials begins in March, Reuters reports. Related Video:

GM expands ignition switch recall to over 1.3 million cars amid climbing death toll

588,000 Saturn Sky, Saturn Ion, Pontiac Solstice and Chevy HHR models join the 778,000 cars already being recalled.
General Motors has announced a massive expansion of a 778,000-unit recall we told you about two weeks ago, doubling not only the total number of cars affected but expanding the recall beyond Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 models previously mentioned. The recall originally centered around ignition switches that could slip out of the "run" position if jostled or if any weight was applied to the key in the cylinder.

Woman Cleared In Fatal Car Wreck After GM Letter

A Texas judge cleared a woman Monday for a car accident that killed her fiance in 2004, after General Motors acknowledged that her car would have been among millions being recalled for a problem that may have contributed to the death. Candice Anderson was driving a 2004 Saturn Ion when it suddenly veered off a road about 60 miles east of Dallas and slammed into a tree. Anderson, then 21, was severely injured when the car's air bags failed to deploy. Her 25-year-old fiance, Gene Erikson, who was a passenger, was killed. She later pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the wreck. But during a hearing Monday, State District Judge Teresa Drum expunged the conviction from her record, according to officials in the Van Zandt County court andAnderson's attorney, Bob Hilliard. In a letter given to the court ahead of the hearing, an attorney for the automaker confirmed that Anderson's Saturn would have been among 2.6 million GM vehicles recalled in February to address ignition switches that can slip out of the "run" position, causing the engines to stall and disabling power steering, brakes and air bags. Anderson's crash "is one in which the recall condition may have caused or contributed to the frontal air bag non-deployment in the accident," attorney Richard C. Godfrey wrote. Hilliard provided a copy of the letter to The Associated Press, and Godfrey confirmed its contents Monday. Anderson was initially charged with criminally negligent homicide because there was no clear explanation at the time why the wreck occurred, according to court documents from the case. She pleaded guilty to a letter charge in 2006, and was sentenced to five years' probation. She also was ordered to perform 260 hours of community service, pay court costs and cover the costs of Erikson's funeral. "GM knew this defect caused this death, yet instead of telling the truth watched silently as Candice was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter," Hilliard said Monday. "It took 10 years for GM to find its voice." In a separate statement issued by the company, GM said it "cooperated fully by providing technical information that was requested to make a decision in this matter." The carmaker also said the issue in Anderson's case was for local law enforcement and courts to consider. "That's why we took a neutral position on Ms. Anderson's case," the company's statement said. "It was appropriate for the court to determine the legal status of Ms.