---

DaimlerChrysler Appeals South Carolina Decision

7 March 2000

DC Claims Verdict Unconstitutional; Award Excessive

                  
AUBURN HILLS, Mich. - Citing numerous errors by a lower court, and a staggering 
verdict premised on a misleading depiction of events, DaimlerChrysler Corporation 
this morning filed an appeal in an attempt to overturn a record $262.5 million 
verdict rendered by a Charleston, South Carolina jury.  The appeal in 
Jimenez v DaimlerChrysler Corporation was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia.

    "This is a classic example of the civil justice system running amok," said
Ken Gluckman, Assistant General Counsel, DaimlerChrysler Corporation.  "The
jury was forced to decide this case without hearing the two most critical
pieces of evidence -- the fact that the minivan driver, Sergio Jimenez's
mother, caused the accident by running a red light, and that the child would
have survived if he had been wearing a seatbelt.  How can we expect juries to
reach a fair verdict when they are denied access to the facts?"

    DaimlerChrysler bases its appeal on several key arguments:

    Critical Evidence Wrongly Withheld/False Material Wrongly Admitted:  While
the judge ruled that the fact that Sergio was unbelted, could not be mentioned
by Chrysler, the plaintiff's counsel was allowed to tell the jury that the
child was wearing a seatbelt.  The fact that the child was unbelted was
verified by police and experts from both sides.  Thus, instead of knowing that
Sergio was not belted at the time, plaintiff's counsel had the jury believing
that precisely the reverse was true:  that he was belted.  "It is hard to
envision a more damaging, and more outrageous, impression for the jury to take
into deliberations," Gluckman said.

    Huge Punitive Damage Award Is Unconstitutional:  The trial court allowed
the plaintiffs to convert this case into a fight over punitive damages when
there was not a shred of proof that supported any punitive damages.  The fact
that the Chrysler minivan met or exceeded all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards automatically should bar punitive damages because by meeting such
standards, Chrysler's actions could not be construed as, "willful, wanton, or
in reckless disregard of others."  In addition, the United States Supreme
Court has held that punitive damages can be so "grossly excessive" that the
award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In this
case, the punitive damage award is nine times larger than the combined total
of all punitive damage awards to survive appeal in South Carolina since 1945.
"The breathtaking size of the award alone demonstrates that the jury acted
emotionally, based on an incorrect description of the accident and of the
design of the minivan," Gluckman said.  "We are confident that the appellate
court will right this wrong."

    Background
    On April 10, 1994, the minivan driver ran a red light -- directly into the
path of an oncoming car.  The force of the collision was so severe that it
caused the minivan to do a complete 360-degree roll and a 180-degree spin.
Tragically, 6-year-old Sergio Jimenez, who was not wearing his seatbelt, was
thrown from the vehicle.  His mother and sister, who were both wearing their
seatbelts, escaped serious injury.

    "The only thing more tragic than Sergio's death is the fact that it did
not have to happen," said Gluckman.  "We agree with the plaintiffs who
conceded at trial that had Sergio been belted he would have stayed inside the
vehicle, and if anything, would only have suffered very minor injuries.

    The case, Jimenez v Chrysler Corporation, decided on October 8, 1997 in
the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, stemmed
from a crash involving a negligent driver and a 1985 Dodge Caravan.  In
October 1997, Chrysler Corporation filed its post-trial motions asking the
trial court to reverse the jury's decision or grant it a new trial.  Two years
later, in December 1999, the trial court denied Chrysler's motion, and instead
adopted large portions of plaintiff's proposed opinion verbatim (except to
reduce the compensatory award from $12.5 million to $9 million).

    "What should have been a simple and straightforward trial deviated into a
three-ring circus focused on inflammatory, baseless allegations that had
nothing to do with the core of the case," Gluckman said.