Fiat Chrysler headrest class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: A federal jury in Boston, Mass. has awarded a verdict for Fiat Chrysler over claims the automaker manufactured and sold Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler vehicles with defective headrests.
- Why: The jury ruled that, while FCA had been unfair to a class of around 93,000 vehicle owners, the automaker had not actually harmed them.
- Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts federal court.
A federal jury in Boston has sided with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles over claims the automaker sold vehicles equipped with headrests that would allegedly deploy inadvertently and without warning.
The jury, following seven hours of deliberation, ruled FCA will not have to pay any money to a class of around 93,000 Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler owners who were asking for $122 million to pay for replacement headrest parts, reports Law360.
Vehicle owners had reportedly accused FCA, which is owned by Stellantis, of committing deceptive and unfair practices and of violating Massachusetts’ consumer protection law.
The jury, meanwhile, determined that, while FCA had been unfair to the owners of vehicles with defective headrests, that the automaker had not harmed them, reports Law360.
FCA argued it was shielded from claims by its 10-year extended warranty program
FCA, while attempting to get the class action lawsuit dismissed, had argued to the jury that the class of vehicle owners was attempting to obtain a “windfall” in funds for individuals who never had an issue with their headrests in all their time owning their vehicle.
The automaker had also argued that the claims against it were offset by its 10-year extended warranty program, which was designed to replace headrests that would inadvertently deploy, reports Law360.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed against FCA in March 2020 by a group of vehicle owners arguing the automaker manufactured and sold vehicles with defective headrests.
In that case, the vehicle owners claimed the allegedly defective headrests were equipped with a mechanism called an “active head restraint” that would allegedly deploy without warning and hit the back of the head of a vehicle occupant.
Do you own a Fiat Chrysler vehicle with a defective headrest? Let us know in the comments!
The Fiat Chrysler headrest class action lawsuit is Costa, et al. v. FCA US LLC, et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-11810, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
3 thoughts onFiat Chrysler avoids paying car owners in faulty headrest class action
Update** Jeep Cares reached out to me as well followup from Chrysler rep 12/22/23 handling my case. I have been assured they do care and have engineers working on this subject and will share data with me regarding testing and solution of which I will report, I do believe in the technology of catching the head like a parachute and air bags when it works properly. I have been assured my concerns will be reviewed by Sr. Attorney. In good faith I will communicate for a swift resolution without compromising my belief few of the public are aware of this issue and need to be. It goes two ways for me and my wife who at this point still does not have the husband she married, from here I will write of being treated fairly to move on, to forgive and deal with whatever the future presents or writing resentfully that I was not.
I was treated very kindly and it did matter to my wife and I, we have not tree, no gifts, no lights but it felt like a spark of Christmas we put in a food delivery order a turkey, stuffing the fixings for a dinner for two on Christmas, it didn’t feel like it before the call. #ChryslerThankYou for well wishes.
Which is it 75# of force deploying at .o27 second in Florida class action claim or 120# pounds of force at over 60mph as claimed in this action. I thought it was bad thinking it was 75# log that hit me July 7th (NHTSA report was filed, crickets from them) a date seared in my struggling mind, now needing c3-7 neck fusion, I see a speech therapist. Why are these suits not about the injuries? is it that litigants will just get a pencil from such high costs of litigation after years of waiting and multiple law firms pilling on? Is it because Chrysler has been settling quickly in injury cases you see in news reports, good for them but doesn’t stop the next in line and I fear if already not detected a family will die in a rollover.. Will I be treated fairly despite my advocacy to end the not so merry go round of injuries with me? We shall see
Executives and NHTSA need to be called in front of congress to answer questions I have discovered from a personal perspective, so few even know these (unbranded unlike srs) potentially defective devices are even behind their loved ones heads. If Chrysler has a problem that is to big to recall, then perhaps they can ask for help on cost effective solutions such as my idea they scan the potentially defective headrests to see if there are micro fractures.. Has NHTSA worked out the physics with crash test dummies of a type of injury I sustained just shutting door. My head traveling to the headrest apox 11 oclock angle where simulation shows it was less than an inch from AHR when it deployed (key not even in ignition) from vibration of door shutting sending my head off like a pinball machine.
I own a Chrysler that leaks when it rains and Chrysler knows it’s a manufacturing defect . Though they want to call it maintenance yet no where in the maintenance book does it say it