There will be a lot on the line for General Motors today whenlawyers for plaintiff Robert Scheuer try to prove the car crashthat sent him to surgery was caused by a defective ignition switchthat prevented air bags from deploying.

Southern District Judge Jesse Furman will preside over juryselection in the Scheuer case, the first of six bellwether trialsin which plaintiffs lawyers are attempting to prove the automobilegiant was late to recall cars with defective switches and engagedin a massive cover-up to avoid liability.

Scheuer suffered serious back injuries on May 28, 2014, when his2003 Saturn Ion was struck by another car in Bristow, Okla., forcedoff the road and into some trees.

Scheuer and some 1,600 other claimants allege the problem was adefect that caused the ignition switch to go from the “run” to the“accessory” or “off” position, causing their vehicles to losepower, speed control and braking, and, in Scheuer’s case andothers, prevent air bags from deploying.

GM had sent out recall notices warning that multiple keys orother items on a key ring might cause the ignition to switchpositions. Scheuer said he received two of those notices andfollowed instructions to remove all items from his key ring, savehis ignition key for the Saturn.

GM, represented by Kirkland & Ellis partners Richard Godfreyand Andrew Bloomer, is confident it can defeat efforts of each ofthe six plaintiffs to prove the ignition switch rotated, that thetiming of the rotation prevented the airbag from deploying and thattheir injuries were caused by the failure of the airbags todeploy.

“In the Scheuer case, GM will show the ignition switch did notrotate and the airbags were not designed to deploy in thisaccident,” GM spokesman James Cain said in a statement.

Related: GMto pay $900 million after probe into faultyignitions

In papers filed with the court, Godfrey and Bloomer state that“The unrebutted scientific evidence shows that a Saturn Ionoperated with only an ignition key is substantially lesssusceptible to inadvertent rotation, and cannot inertially rotateat all, than an ignition switch with a key having multiple itemsattached to its ring,”

They also objected pretrial to the fact that Scheuer’s car hasnot been preserved and asked for sanctions, but Furman said thecase could go forward.

GM is accused of knowing about the faulty switches for yearsbefore it belatedly issued a recall notice in February 2014. Thirtymillion recalls were issued amid a storm of outrage and acongressional inquiry.

The company, sometimes referred to as “New GM” in court papersfollowing its emergence from bankruptcy, paid $900 million as partof a deferred prosecution agreement with the Southern District U.S.Attorney’s Office. The company has also paid out close to $600million of a fund it established to compensate claimants. Scheuer’sclaim on the fund, however, was denied by the company.

Furman has been riding herd on the multi-district case, In reGeneral Motors Ignition Switch Litigation, 14-MD-2543. Some 1,385of the cases have settled for roughly $275 million and about 339remain. A total of 217 are wrongful death and personal injurysuits, with the remainder seeking damages claiming the recallreduced the resale value of their cars.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Robert Hilliard, of Hilliard MunozGonzales in Corpus Christi, accompanied by attorneys with HagensBerman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle, Washington and Lieff CabraserHeimann & Bernstein in San Francisco, California, also reacheda $300 million class action settlement on behalf of General Motorsshareholders who said the bad publicity over the recalls hurt theirstock.

The plaintiffs attorneys, in their third amended consolidatedcomplaint filed in December, condemned “New GM’s unprecedentedabrogation of basic standards of safety, truthfulness, andaccountability to the detriment of tens of millions of consumersand the public at large.”

General Motors headquarters in downtownDetroit. (Photo: Paul Sancya/AP Photo)

Setting a template

The six bellwether cases are designed to set the template forsettlement on the remaining cases. The second trial, set to beginin March, is the only one of the six involving a death. Scheuer ismaking four claims for damages against General Motors, all underOklahoma law, for Oklahoma Manufacturer’s Product Liability, fraud,and negligence as well as a claim for violation of the OklahomaConsumer Protection Act.

Following the recalls, General Motors retained Anton Valukas,chairman of Jenner & Block, who issued a report on the ignitionswitches — excerpts of which are expected to be a key part of theScheuer and plaintiff trials, the last of which is due to start inNovember.

The case will also feature dueling expert testimony, a May 16,2014, consent order the company signed with the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration and the company’s deferredprosecution agreement in the Southern District. The last twodocuments will be presented to the jury with redactions. The trialis expected to last four to five weeks.

Furman has been shaping the parameters of the case in a flurryof pretrial opinions, including a decision in late December inwhich he ruled that Hilliard had presented at least a prima faciecase for the admission of 15 Other Similar Incidents (OSIs) ofalleged ignition switch failure (New York Law Journal, Dec. 30).

But Furman also deferred ruling on the actual admissibility ofthe 15 OSIs, and he expressed doubt about whether some witnesseswould be allowed to testify, and concern over allowing “potentiallyinflammatory and emotionally charged testimony.”

On Dec. 29, Furman ruled on the absence of Scheuer’s car.General Motors had moved for sanctions against Scheuer based onspoliation of the evidence.

But Furman denied the motion and said “New GM is precluded fromintroducing evidence or argument suggesting plaintiff destroyed hiscar (or allowed it to be destroyed) or that the car, if preserved,would have yielded favorable evidence to New GM.”

On Jan. 4, the judge circulated a proposed jury questionnairethat asks what make of vehicle prospective jurors drive, whetherthey drive a GM car, and whether they or their family own GM stock,including at the time GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009.

The questions also include whether prospective jurors have everbeen in an accident, whether air bags were deployed and whether,and how badly, they were injured. The jury pool received thequestionnaire on Thursday.

This story was first published on Law.com. You can read theoriginal story here.

Related: GM pays ignition victims less than $600 million insettlements