$4.9 BILLION VERDICT! JURY ORDERS GM TO PAY DAMAGES TO BURN VICTIMS.

Byline: Rick Orlov and Beth Barrett Staff Writers

A Los Angeles jury awarded $4.9 billion to six people Friday who were badly burned when the fuel tank of their Chevrolet Malibu exploded Christmas Eve 1993 after a drunk driver rear-ended them.

The jury found General Motors Corp. knowingly failed to recall and fix the car's fuel tank. It is believed to be the largest product liability-personal injury verdict ever.

Patricia Anderson, one of the victims, said she was stunned by the unanimous decision. Fighting for the right words, she said it was almost impossible to believe the nightmare that meant more than 100 surgeries for two of her young daughters had been concluded in such a dramatic courtroom fashion.

``I couldn't imagine this,'' she said, her hands clasped in her lap, adding she felt blessed beyond her wildest dreams.

Anderson, a Los Angeles homemaker, has struggled financially in the aftermath of the crash, which occurred as she drove home from a South Los Angeles church service with her four children and a friend.

The verdict has broad legal implications for GM, the victims and for those who predict it will become the centerpiece case in the debate over California tort reform.

General Motors attorney Richard Shapiro said the company did nothing wrong and will appeal the verdict, which comprised $107 million in compensatory damages and $4.8 billion in punitive damages.

The award will almost certainly be reduced either by a judge or as a result of a settlement agreement, legal experts said.

Jury foreman Coleman Thornton said every juror believed GM had for ``years and years'' engaged in a cover-up of the fuel tank's deficiencies.

Thornton said the jury wanted to ``send a message'' to GM.

``We figured that if they had no respect for the lives of people in their cars, they should be held liable for it,'' he said.

Shapiro said jurors did not properly weigh exculpatory evidence produced by GM and were also barred from hearing additional evidence favorable to the company by Superior Court Judge Ernest George Williams.

``General Motors is sorry for the plaintiffs, but they were the innocent victims of a drunk driver,'' said Shapiro, with the firm Snell & Wilmer of Phoenix. ``The jurors couldn't see beyond their natural sympathies.''

Recall rejected

During the 10-week trial, attorney Brian Panish argued that internal company documents showed GM officials made a calculated decision not to recall the models, even though they were concerned about the gas tanks.

He said it would have cost $8.59 to fix each car's tank, but only an estimated $2.20 per auto for possible legal settlements.

``General Motors knew they had a problem,'' Panish said. ``They knew the gas tank was only 11 inches from the rear and could result in an explosion. But for the $8.59 it would cost to fix it, they decided to leave it as it is.

``This case is about putting profits ahead of people.''

Shapiro denied that any such cost-benefit analysis played a part in GM's decision.

``That is absolutely not true,'' he said. ``There was no value analysis used in any design decision.''

One of the documents in question, he said, was authorized by a ``junior engineer'' but was never distributed and had nothing to do with any of the manufacturing or other decisions made regarding the Malibu.

Describing the document trail as more complicated than it was portrayed by the plaintiffs, Shapiro said his case was weakened because he wasn't allowed to tell jurors the driver of the other car was drunk, or to introduce test results showing the Malibu performing well in crash tests.

The driver of the other vehicle, Daniel Moreno, then 28, of Los Angeles, was sentenced to four years in prison for felony drunk driving, according to Los Angeles District Attorney's Office records.

``The fact that he was going about 70 miles per hour and was drunk is important,'' Shapiro said.

Focus on gas tank

Panish said the issue was the gas tank - not the inebriation of the driver.

``Defective gas tanks don't discriminate between drunk and sober drivers,'' he said, adding that the majority of the injuries were burn-related and that, had the car not ignited, ``there would have been only one child with a broken leg.''

Two of Anderson's daughters, Kiontra, now 15, and Alisha, now 11, had numerous surgeries, Panish said. Anderson's other daughter, Kionna, now 13, and a son, Ty-shon, had less serious injuries.

Family friend Jo Tigner also was burned on the legs.

The case immediately drew reactions in legal circles and among consumer groups throughout the country.

In Washington, D.C., where Ralph Nader's Public Citizen won the Ford Pinto fuel tank case in 1977, the group's president, Joan Claybrook, said the jury used the only method available to relay its anger to the company - a huge award.

``They were extremely outraged,'' Claybrook said. ``They wanted to send a message to the company that this is unacceptable.''

Claybrook also said the award would most likely be reduced. In the Ford case, a jury's $125 million punitive award was eventually reduced by a judge to $3.5 million.

Still, she said large punitive awards play an important role, ``in a jury asserting community values over corporate values.''

The flip side is that the case may become ``exhibit A'' for those who insist the state's tort system is out of control, said Stephen Barnett, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall.

``It's probably the last thing the California Trial Lawyers would like to see,'' he said. ``Politically it may have a significant impact on tort law, in favor of those who say juries are running amok.''

Barnett said he doubted GM's stock price would dip as a result of the verdict. The market closed Friday before the award was announced.

Added Anthony Bell, a Studio City resident and executive director of Citizens SAgainst Lawsuit Abuse, ``From what I know, this is an unconscionable amount of punitive damages given to an attorney who sees a deep pocket and is using emotion to get this outrageous verdict.''

For Alisha Anderson, whose leathery scars linger as testimony to the burns she suffered over nearly half her body, the verdict and sense of vindication were something to finally smile about.

``It isn't about the money,'' she said.