Their suit should have gone to court before now. That's a problem with the courts. That little girl should own the new GM.

Supposedly the seatbelt was at fault but looking at the crash picture and hearing about the accident one would think the actual accident was the cause. Why did the driver slam head ON into a tree? Was it to avoid another vehicle or pedestrian? If the driver is partly at fault why should GM accept total responsibility (Devil's Advocate)?

Years ago my oldest daughter was in a similar wreck and several of her back vertebrae were broken, but without spinal cord effects thankfully. The doctors in the hospital told me at that time that lap belts in the back seats were not adequate to prevent injury and that they often did more harm than good especially to the back. They advocated the same type of seat belts in the back as one has in the front – lap belts with shoulder belts to keep the upper body from snapping forward and then back again. It would have prevented my daughter's injuries. As to whether it would have prevented this girls injuries I don't know but I do wonder if she was too small to be safely fastened in that seat belt – lately children under a certain height and weight have been cited as needing to be in a booster seat or car seat (an outgrowth of baby seats) and then placed in the lap/shoulder belt combination. This combination is suppose to almost eliminate the chances of serious injury for small children.