— A Mercedes-Benz headrest lawsuit alleges customers complain their active headrests deployed without collisions, suddenly smacking occupants on their heads.
The Mercedes headrest lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Joseph Monopoli (New York), James Fitzpatrick (North Carolina), Synthia Praglin (California) and Sawntanaia Harris (California).
Harris is the only plaintiff who claims the headrest unintentionally deployed, meaning three of the plaintiffs sued even though they didn't have any problems with their headrests.
The plaintiffs and several Florida Mercedes owners sued the automaker and headrest manufacturer Grammer in a Florida district court, but the class action lawsuit was dismissed except for one claim made by two Florida owners.
The plaintiffs then filed a headrest lawsuit in a Georgia district court which heard the same arguments but ruled differently than the Florida court.
According to the Mercedes headrest class action, the active head restraint is called the NECK-PRO and is used to prevent whiplash injuries in rear-end collisions. The headrest propels forward and upward to prevent the occupant's head from suddenly flying backward.
The plaintiffs say the internal headrest mechanism uses a latch pin that keeps the active headrest in place until a collision occurs. The latch pin allegedly must hold back 75 pounds of force and is made with cheap plastic allegedly prone to break.
The lawsuit alleges the plastic breaks and causes the headrest to strike the head of the occupant without a collision. According to the class action lawsuit, the headrest is moving at 12 miles per hour when it hits the driver or passenger.
Motion to Dismiss the Mercedes Headrest Lawsuit
Mercedes-Benz filed a motion to dismiss the headrest class action lawsuit, following the same playbook it used to get the same lawsuit dismissed in Florida. However, the judge came to a somewhat different conclusion this time.
Mercedes succeeded in getting multiple claims tossed, including the following.
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Design & Manufacture
- Negligent Failure to Warn
- California False Advertising Law
- Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
- North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
- Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
- Monopoli’s and Fitzpatrick’s unjust enrichment claims
- Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
But while Judge Steven D. Grimberg did dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, he denied to dismiss a fraudulent concealment claim as well as a New York business law claim.
Additionally, Judge Grimberg ruled plaintiffs Praglin and Harris may pursue unjust enrichment claims.
The Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: Monopoli, et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Caplan Cobb LLP, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Santiago Burger LLP, and Law Office of George Franjola.
