Parties Involved: Karen Norman/ Honda Co.
Type of Case: Murder
Synopsis: 1992, Texas. Galveston Bay
In 1992, Karen Norman, 23-year old had an accident and backed her car after a night of
drinking into Galveston Bay. Norman was unable to unbuckle her-self out of the seat but
her passenger managed to disengage and swim to shore. Norman had a level of blood
alcohol of 17 which is nearly twice of the legal limit. Her parents decided to sue the Honda
Company for making seat beats that she could not unbuckle under water, with the
influence of alcohol. A jury found Honda 75% responsible for Karen’s death and awarded
the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.
What were the reasons for such ruling?
The reasons are for cause of death and negligence. Karen’s passenger/friend should have
not allowed her to drive. Honda is not responsible for drunks not being able to use their
seatbelts, that why it’s illegal to drink and drive.
Do you agree or disagree with the decision made? Why and what would you have
done differently?
My opinion towards this case is that the Norman’s reason to sue is ridiculous, their
daughter had a high level of alcohol in her system, maybe her passenger didn’t drink has
much as her and was able to get out. Karen was negligent to drink while drunk, assuming
the risk as well, the other passenger should have not let her drive the car either being drunk
risking both of their lives. The only reason I think Honda was found 75% responsible is
because they can afford it.