Product Liability Law Blog

The US Justice Department and the New York attorney general have filed separate securities lawsuits seeking more than $2 billion from Bank of New York Mellon Corp. The complaints accuse the BNY Mellon of overcharging clients billions of dollars with currency trades and defrauding them for over 10 years.

Federal and state officials didn't arrive at these findings without help. According to The Wall Street Journal, Grant Wilson, who sold and bought currencies for clients at the bank's Pittsburgh trading desk, was the secret whistleblower that spent two years handing over documents and information to the government to help build the case against BNY Mellon.

As a matter of fact, other state attorneys general, including those in Florida and Virginia, have also files their securities complaints against the financial firm based on the information that he provided. The lawsuits accuse the bank of overcharging major clients through unfavorable currency-exchange rates. These were clients that had given the bank "standing instruction" to trade on their behalf. The plaintiffs say that there are even internal communications and emails between BNY Mellon executives that endorse this alleged currency transaction practice, show preference toward certain client, and express concern that providing greater transparency would lower profit margins.

Qui Tam/Whistleblower Lawsuits
As a whistleblower, Wilson is entitled to a percentage of whatever the Justice Department and the state attorneys general recover. Also known as Qui Tam cases, a whistleblower lawsuit is brought by an individual that exposes fraudulent activity.

Now, under The Dodd-Frank Reform Act, a whistleblower that comes forward with "original information" resulting in a successful enforcement action or an administrative one that leads to a more than $1 million monetary sanction may end up receiving 10-30% of the total sanctions collected. The amount the whistleblower receives will depend on the kind of help he/she gave and how much of an impact this made on the case. The information provided by the whistleblower must either have resulted in a new probe or examination or, if there was already a investigation going on, then the information provided by the whistleblower must be what only he/she could have provided and played a key role obtaining a successful action.

Filing a whistleblower claim can be a daunting process, and you want to make sure that you are represented by attorneys that can protect your rights and help you obtain the maximum allowed under Dodd-Frank.

Secret Informant Surfaces in BNY Currency Probe, The Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2011

BNY Mellon sued over currency rates, BNY Mellon, October 5, 2011

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection

More Blog Posts:
Texas Auto Products Liability Lawsuit Seek Damages from Chrysler Over Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Involving Durango Crashing into Townhome, Product Liability Law Blog, October 30, 2011

Toys 'R' Us Ordered to Pay $20.6M Products Liability Lawsuit in Inflatable Pool Slide Death, Product Liability Law Blog, October 26, 2011

Ford on Trial in California 15-Passenger Van Case, Product Liability Law Blog, October 20, 2011

Continue reading "Secret Whistleblower Played Key Role in Bank of New York Mellon Investigation" »

Wendell Keetch and the family and estate of Bettie Nelson and are suing Chrysler Group, LLC for Texas auto products liability and wrongful death. Nelson, 80, died last February when a 2006 Dodge Durango crashed into the home of Keetch, who sustained life-threatening injuries.

According to police, the SUV, which was driven by Fidel Flores, ran a stop sign and rammed through a brick wall before striking Keetch's home. Per the plaintiffs, they believe "unintended acceleration" caused the Texas auto defect accident. They contend that the automaker either knew or should have known that the Dodge Durango had an auto defect that made it a dangerous vehicle.

Alleged auto defects include a poor fault detection system that could not anticipated unintended acceleration, electromagnetic interference, and short circuiting, defective electronic systems and parts that were at risk of malfunctioning, and lack of a brake override/fail-safe device to stop/prevent sudden acceleration (even though other manufacturers had used an alternate design that could do this). The plaintiffs believe that Chrysler was negligent in the manufacture, design, sale, and marketing of the 2006 Durango and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the deadly Texas accident. Negligence allegedly included failure to properly test the vehicle and failure to do enough to protect users and vehicle occupants. The surviving family members and Keetch say that Chrysler either knew or should have known that the vehicle was defective.

The Texas defective auto part lawsuit seeks damages for Nelson's terror, mental anguish, and physical pain prior to her death, as well as burial and funeral costs. Damages are also being sought on behalf of Janith Glazner, who is Nelson's daughter. Glazner is claiming loss of companionship, consortium, and inheritance, and mental anguish. Her brother, James Richard Nelson, is seeking similar damages. Keetch, who sustained permanent and severe injuries is seeking damages for future and past necessary and reasonable medical bills, his physical impairments and mental pain, and the diminishment of his ability to enjoy life.

Meantime, the authorities recently said that they would not charge Flores, because there was not enough evidence indicating whether the driver or an auto defect caused the deadly crash. He, too, also died from the injuries he sustained in the car accident.

When seeking damages for auto products liability against a car manufacturer, you want to work with an auto defects law firm that has the experience, resources, and knowledge to successfully pursue your recovery. Going up against an automaker can be tough and you want to make sure that you retain someone that won't be intimidated by this fact and has a record of success.

Read the Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Parents File Texas Auto Products Liability Lawsuit Against General Motors Over Teenager's SUV Rollover Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, September 7, 2011

Texas Playground Accident Lawsuit Seeks Damages from McDonald's Chain Owners, Product Liability Law Blog, July 29, 2011

Texas Auto Products Liability: Air Bag Defect Lawsuit Seeks Damages from GM, Product Liability Law Blog, May 10, 2011

A jury has awarded a family $20.6 million Massachusetts products liability verdict in their wrongful death case against Toys 'R' Us. Robin Aleo, 29, died in 2006 after she hit her head while sliding down a Banzai Falls, inflatable in-ground pool slide.

At the time, Aleo, her husband, and their 18-month daughter were attending a pool party at a relatives' home. As she went down head-first, side bottomed out and she hit her head against the pool. Aleo broke her neck, suffered a spinal cord injury that left her paralyzed, and lost the ability to breathe on her own. Meantime, her toddler watched as she was rescued, unconscious, from the pool. Aleo died one day after the swimming accident.

The pool had been purchased from the giant toy retailer through Amazon.com. During the Massachusetts defective products trial, jurors were told that Bureau Veritas, the company that Toys "R" Us works with in China to test products for safety, was never instructed to see whether the pool slide complied with US safety regulations. The slide failed tests to see whether it contained excessive levels of lead twice.

The toy retailer's attorneys argued that federal regulations don't apply to inflatable slides, which meant that Toys 'R' Us didn't have to test the Banzai Falls slide for regulation compliance. They also contended that Aleo got hurt because she tried to dive off the slide.

Federal Safety Standards for All Pool Slides
Pool slides must be able to hold 350 pounds without giving way. Slides must also be tested for safety for "head-first sliding." According to one expert witness for the plaintiff, the Banzai slide cannot support any load because as one goes down the slide, shifting the weight, someone is going down it displaces the air at the bottom.

The jury awarded Aleo's family $18 million in punitive damages, $2.5 million in future lost income that she would have made had she lived and other damages, and $100,000 for the pain and suffering she experienced from the inflatable pool slide accident leading to her death. Amazon.com and slide manufacturer SLB Toys USA were also defendants in the family's Massachusetts wrongful death case. They have, however, already settled with the family.

Products Liability
If you were injured by a defective product, depending on the specifics of your case, you may be able to pursue products liability damages from not just the manufacturer, but also the retailer, wholesaler, distributor, or supplier--any parties that may have played a role in the product's chain of distribution, which is the route the product takes from the manufacturer to the customer. When suing a retailer for products liability, you don't have to have been the one to buy the product. You may not have even been the person actually using the product that caused your injury. Do not be intimidated even if the retailer is a large corporation.

Massachusetts jury awards $20 million verdict in lawsuit over inflatable pool slide, Washington Post, October 16, 2011

$20.6M award in pool slide death Toys "R" Us liable in sale, Eagle Tribune, October 15, 2011

Defective Product Liability Claims: Who to Sue?, Nolo

Pool Slides, Consumer Watch

More Blog Posts:
More Than 1500 Drowning Deaths Reported This Season, Product Liability Law Blog, September 24, 2011

Inflatable Pools Pose Significant Drowning Risk to Young Children, Says American Academy of Pediatrics, Product Liability Law Blog, July 13, 2011

Mother Files $12.5M Oregon Child Injury Lawsuit After Daughter Nearly Drowns in Pool, Product Liability Law Blog, March 9, 2011

A California 15-passenger van accident lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. is being fought out in civil court. The six plaintiffs are seeking auto products liability compensation over a 2004 van accident.

The vehicle, a Ford Econoline E350,was part of a caravan of church kids and their chaperones when tread separation impacted one of its tires. This caused the van driver Bill Brownell to lose control of the van, which then rolled over several times after he overcorrected. Brownell and passenger Tony Mauro were thrown from the vehicle and died.

Now, the victims that survived the California 15-passenger van accident want Ford to pay. They contend that the automaker knew the van was dangerous but failed to notify customers.

The jury is going to have to assess whether buckled seat belts and a driver tutorial could have saved the lives of Brownell and Mauro, who weren't wearing safety belts at the time. They will also have to decide whether Ford should have told car dealers that the Goodyear tire was prone to separation and had been recalled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2008.

The plaintiffs have already reached confidential settlements with the other defendants: Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (over the tire defect), Sears, which sold the tire, and Suburban Ford, which was responsible for servicing the van.

Ford has been the target of hundreds of 15-passenger van lawsuits over its Econoline van. It was just last year that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration put out another advisory warning that if not properly operated and maintained, this Ford van is at high risk of rolling over and crashing. The government cautioned that the vehicle's tires must be kept properly inflated and look out for signs of wear and tear. The NHTSA also noted that unbalanced or improper loading of the vehicle increases the chances of a rollover crash. The federal safety agency said that only drivers trained to operate a 15-passenger van should drive this one.

15-Passenger Van Accidents
15-passenger vans are more prone to rollover crashes than most other autos. Although the vans are designed to carry 15 passengers and the luggage that can accompany so many occupants, studies show that the more people who get in the vehicle, even without exceeding the passenger limit, the greater the chance that it will roll as the center gravity moves toward the back, dramatically impacting the degree of control the driver is able to have when trying to avoid an accident.

You want to work with an experienced auto products liability law firm that understands the design flaws inherent in 15-passenger vans and knows how to prove they contributed to causing the personal injury or death. Going after a big automaker on your own can be tough, which is why it is important that you retain the services of a 15-passenger van lawyer that has the resources, experience, and ability to protect you and fight for your right to recovery.

Lawsuit continues in fatal crash of big church, Sacramento Bee, October 12, 2011

15-Passenger Van Safety, Public Citizen

NHTSA

More Blog Posts:
$32.2M Goodyear Tire Blowout Verdict Upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court in Deadly 2004 Utah 15-Passenger Van Crash--Again, Product Liability Law Blog, January 10, 2011

15-Passenger Van Lawsuit Filed Against Chrysler and R & J Tire Company Over Woman's Wrongful Death, Product Liability Law Blog, October 27, 2010

California Rollover Lawsuits: Ford Ordered to Pay Paralyzed Musician $18 Million and Jaguar Land Rover Must Pay Former Field Hockey Player $21.1 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, June 18, 2009

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, half of the booster seats that are available for kids to use are not a guaranteed, proper fit with all seat belts. The IIHS expressed its concerns as it unveiled its list of this year's best-fitting car booster seats. Click on the link below for a list of the booster seats that the IIHS tested and find out how they fared.

Although there are now more choices available for purchase--the IIHS listed 31 booster seats on its Best Bets list and 5 on its Good BETS list--it named six booster seats that it wants parents to completely stay away from. These included four Evenflo products--Chase, Express, Sightseer, Generations 65--and two Safety 1st products-- the Alpha Omega Elite and the All-in-One. The IIHS tested 83 booster seats in total. If your child was injured in a car accident and you believe that the booster seat malfunctioned or was designed poorly, please contact our child car seat law firm to request your free case evaluation.

Booster seats are designed for kids that are no longer small enough to use a forward-facing car seat. They are supposed to elevate a child seated in the car just enough so that a that regular safety belt can fit securely around the body. It is important that the booster seat helps position a child so that the shoulder and lap belts fall properly and securely around him/her so that this minimizes the chances of serious injuries during a collision. According to statistics, kids age4-8 are 45% less likely to get hurt in a collision if they are using a booster seat with a seat belt.

IIHS says it can be difficult for a parent to know which booster seat is safer just by comparing features and prices. It also expressed dismay that there are still more seats that require parents to check their fit to make sure that they work with a safety belt. 41 booster seats received CHECK FIT ratings.

Our products liability lawyers cannot stress the importance of making sure that your booster seat works properly with a seat belt. Otherwise, during an auto collision your child could end up being thrown against the front seat or out of the vehicle, striking his/her head on the roof of the car during a rollover accident (potentially suffering a traumatic brain injury or a spinal cord injury), or suffering a seat belt-related injury (potentially experiencing organ damage.)

Right now, the National Highway Traffic Safety doesn't assess how booster seats do in terms of how well they fit with all seat belts. While manufacturers have been urged to improve belt fit, they are not required to do this.

Booster evaluations for 2011, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Car-safety group: Half of child booster seats pose risks, USA Today, October 13, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Booster Seat Safety, Baby Center

Child Seats, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Child Restraint Laws

More Blog Posts:
NHTSA Announces New Child Seat Guidelines, Product Liability Law Blog, March 21, 2011

Child Passenger Safety Week: Protecting Your Child with the Proper Child Safety Seat, Product Liability Law Blog, September 22, 2010

IIHS's New Booster Seat Ratings Offers 9 Best Bets; Doesn't Recommend 11 Child Safety Seats Because of Poor Fit with Seat Belts, Product Liability Law Blog, January 6, 2010

Continue reading "Half of Child Booster Seats Are Not A Safe Enough Fit with All Seat Belts, Reports IIHS" »

More than two years after recalling approximately 1.6 million Little Tikes™ Workshops Sets and Trucks after an 11-month-old South Carolina boy choked on a toy nail that got stuck in his throat, the manufacturer and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are recalling another 1.7 million units--this time of Little Tikes® Workshop and Tool Sets--over the same child choking hazard posed by the plastic toy nails.

The recall comes after reports of another two child choking accidents involving nails getting lodge in kids' throats. Both incidents occurred before the 2009 recall. Fortunately, all three children were treated at hospitals and fully recovered.

Choking Hazards and Toys
Per the CPSC, in the last 18 years, more than 290 kids have died because of toy-related incidents. Over 55% of these involved choking that resulted in asphyxia. The majority of choking accidents involved toy parts, balls, and balloons.

Most of the kids were younger than age 5, which is not surprising, considering that choking is the number one cause of accidental child death for kids 10 and under. Not only is this because a young child's trachea is so narrow--about the size of a drinking straw in diameter--but also, young kids are especially prone to put small objects in their mouth without realizing how dangerous this can be for them. Over 10,000 children end up in hospital emergency rooms each year for treatment of choking-related injuries.

Examples of toy items that can pose a choking hazard:
• Marbles
• Small parts
• Tiny figures
• Button size batteries for toys
• Crayons
• Small, removeable toy parts

Toys are not the only products that can pose choking hazards. Toymakers and the manufacturers of other products know of this danger and they are supposed to make toys for infants and toddlers that minimize this risk. Unfortunately, products are still getting made that do pose a choking hazard to children. Our products liability lawyers have watched as teething products, rattles, and other items that have had to be recalled because they were small enough that they were too easy to swallow.

Unfortunately, in many instances, safety recalls aren't announced until after someone has already gotten hurt. It is always a good idea to properly supervise your child/monitor the types of toys and other products he/she is allowed to use just in case. For older kids, smaller toys and toy parts should come with the proper warnings of any risks.

Our child injury lawyers represent families whose children were injured because a product was defective or posed some type of safety hazard. You should not be afraid to hold a negligent manufacturer, seller, or distributor liable for products liability.

Little Tikes Expands Recall of Toy Workshop and Tool Sets Due to Choking Hazard, CPSC, September 28, 2011

Children And Choking Hazards, CBS News

Choking Prevention for Children

More Blog Posts:
Choking, Entrapment, Fall, and Suffocation Hazards Prompt CPSC's Latest Recalls Involving Children and Infant Products, Product Liability Law Blog, April 5, 2011

Number of Button Battery-Linked Deaths and Injuries Rising, Says CPSC, Product Liability Law Blog, April 23, 2011

Strangulation, Choking, and Fall Hazards Prompt Recall of Baby Walkers, Clothing, and Books, Product Liability Law Blog, April 17, 2010

Continue reading "Little Tikes Recalls Another 1.7 Million Toy Workshop and Tool Sets Over Choking Hazard" »