As General Motors is scheduled later this year to face yet another bellwether trial over allegations it covered up a deadly ignition switch flaw, it can take some comfort from its generally-successful trial record. But critics of the bellwether system are saying that way of lining up trials does not provide an accurate way of keeping score, the National Law Journal reported today. Last month, the seventh bellwether trial, held before Southern District Judge Jesse Furman, ended in a third jury verdict in GM's favor. Attorneys for Dennis Ward, an Arizona man who says he was injured in a 2014 fender bender caused by a faulty ignition switch in his 2009 Chevrolet HHR that made the vehicle lose power while he was driving in traffic, were unable to convince the jury that the automaker was to blame for the accident. Three other cases settled before they went to trial and two were dismissed by the plaintiffs. Bellwether trials have become an increasingly popular method of dealing with mass torts that are intended to reach jury verdicts that can be used as a basis for the parties to settle other cases. But Alexandra Lahav, a University of Connecticut School of Law professor who is an expert on bellwether trials, says that GM's track record so far in the bellwether cases has not been illustrative of the results of the thousands of cases involving GM's ignition switches, which were linked to 124 deaths and thousands of injuries.
