Product Liability Law Blog

According to CNN, a 2006 "confidential" document it obtained reveals that when conducting pre-production trials, Toyota engineers working with a test vehicle noticed an electronic software issue that resulted in "sudden unintended acceleration." The finding reportedly occurred during an adaptive cruise-control software test with a model that would later be sold as a Lexus 460 in Europe and Japan. The engineers noted that a "fail-safe overhaul" would be necessary for a different model that would later become the Toyota Tundra.

Toyota denies that the document is evidence there was a sudden unintended acceleration-related problem and that rather, this is evidence of its "robust" design and preproduction testing process and commitment to ensuring that its vehicles are safe. The automaker maintains that its electronic systems have never caused sudden acceleration in its vehicles.

However, CNN says that the reported, translated three times, determined that engineers had expressed worry that the cruise control system might cause the vehicle to move forward of its own accord. The car manufacturer says this is inaccurate and that what was an experiment actually resulted in the system being refined and adjusted prior to production. (Toyota says that what happened was that its engineers purposely created an inappropriate sensor signal to test the electronic failsafe system. Although the test identified that there was an electronic sensor sensitivity threshold that was not acceptable, the auto did not actually move.) The automaker says that the problem that arose never happened with any motor vehicle that it motor vehicle that was sold.

Toyota came under fire in 2009 after a slew of car crash victims and families stepped forward claiming that their Lexus and Toyota autos had suddenly accelerated out of control, and in certain instances, could not be stopped despite drivers' efforts. The automaker is now the defendant in over a hundred sudden unintended acceleration lawsuits seeking damages.

Toyota was also compelled to recall millions of vehicles to assuage sudden unintended acceleration concerns related to sticky gas pedals, floor mat pedal entrapment, and brake override problems. It was also required to pay nearly $50 million in fines to the national Highway Safety Administration in 2010 for lapses in safety reporting related to these matters. Despite the automaker's denials, hundreds of sudden unintended auto crashes have been linked to Lexus and Toyota, with many of the accidents resulting in serious injuries and deaths.

The Gilbert Law Group represents victims of auto defects against large manufacturers. We are not afraid to go up against a corporation to make sure that you are compensated for the harm that you have suffered or the loss of a loved one.

Over the last few years, our auto products liability lawyers have been keeping a close watch on this safety issue involving sudden unintended acceleration. We've written many blog posts reporting on the latest developments, as well as highlighting some of the more high profile accidents that have been linked to this safety problem.

Experts: Translated Toyota memo shows electronic acceleration concern, CNN, March 1, 2012

Read one of the translations commissioned by CNN (PDF)

Toyota Denies CNN Report About Sudden Acceleration Concerns, Bloomberg, March 1, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Wrongful Death Trial Over Utah Toyota Sudden Acceleration Lawsuit is Scheduled for 2013, Product Liability Law Blog, June 17, 2011

Another Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration Accident?: Prius Crashes Into Mini-Mall, Trapping Driver in Elevator, Product Liability Law Blog, May 31, 2011

NHTSA Says Electronic Flaws Not Responsible for Toyota Sudden Acceleration Accidents, Product Liability Law Blog, February 9, 2011

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. says it is recalling approximately 41,000 Wrangler Silent Armor tires because it is worried that some of them might tear, causing tread separation and potentially deadly collisions. The tire manufacturer says that six sizes, which were made in 2009, are affected.

Approximately 27,000 of the recalled tires are thought to be in use. They can be found on vans, pickup trucks, SUVs, and for off-road use at construction areas Goodyear says that severe conditions might cause partial tire tread separation, which could result in a car crash and/or vehicle damage. According to the tire maker, two people were killed in a Texas rollover accident last year involving a motor vehicle that used the now-recalled tires.

Tread separation occurs when a tire's tread comes off its body or casing. This can lead to a tire blowout, which can cause a driver to lose control of the vehicle, resulting in a rollover accident and/or a collision with other vehicles. Vehicles with high gravity centers are especially prone to rollover due to tread separation.

Unfortunately, tire blowouts and tread separation have resulted in many injuries and deaths over the years. While there are steps that a motorist can take to prevent both, including regular maintenance, checking tire pressure to make sure that they aren't overinflated or underinflated, and replacing tires when they are worn, it is still up to the manufacturer to make sure that the tires that they put out are free of any defects that could cause them to fail. Common causes of tread separation include manufacture defects and design defects, including poor bonding, inadequate quality control, over aged skim stock, using certain solvents on tire parts, inadequate inspection, and insufficient nylon overlays.

If you or someone you love was injured in a tire defect crash, you should contact an experienced auto products liability law firm right away. While going after a large manufacturer can seem like an intimidating task, with the right tread separation law firm standing by you, you increase your chances of financial recovery.

In December 2010, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a $32.2 million tire blowout verdict against Goodyear over a Utah 15-passenger van accident that killed three family members in 2004. Ford Motor Co. and Valley View Hitch and Truck Rental Company also settled the wrongful deaths claims filed by surviving relatives.

The year before, a 12-year-old boy was awarded a $12 million auto products liability verdict after he was paralyzed in a 2006 motor vehicle crash in Mexico. Michelin & Cie had manufactured the Goodrich tire that failed, causing the driver of the pickup to collide into a Chevy suburban. All of the people in the SUV, including four kids younger than 14, died. Guzman and others in the pickup sustained injuries. His spinal cord injury has left him paralyzed.

Goodyear Recalls Wrangler Silent Armor Tires, Fox Business/Reuters, February 27, 2012

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 11, 2012

12-Year-Old Awarded $12 Million Tire Defect Verdict Against Michelin, Product Liability Law Blog, September 29, 2009

Recently Recalled Honda Civic Blamed in Georgia Air Bag Defect Lawsuit, Product Liability Law Blog, December 31, 2011

Continue reading "Goodyear Recalls Approximately 41,000 Wrangler Silent Armor Tires " »

The National Football League and Riddell are once again the defendants in more civil lawsuits filed by former professional football players blaming them for their brain injuries. In one wrongful death case, the family of former Chicago Bears player Dave Duerson is claiming the NFL and the football helmet maker are to blame for the 50-year-old's suicide. Duerson fatally shot himself in the chest last year.

Duerson's children are saying that the league acted negligently when they did not warn him that concussions sustained during play may cause permanent injury. They say that their father suffered at least 10 concussions while a member of the NFL and that the brain damage impaired his inhibition, judgment, and impulse control. His family is blaming Riddell for Illinois products liability, contending that the helmets failed to properly protect the football players from concussions.

In a Louisiana personal injury lawsuit, nearly a dozen former NFL players residing in that state are also suing the NFL and Riddell for failing to properly protect players from the risks related to concussions. In their class action complaint, the plaintiffs, including a number of ex-New Orleans Saints, are contending that they each sustained physical and mental problems because they suffered concussions while playing professional football games.

They blame the NFL for disregarding the concussion-related risks even though there was "overwhelming medical evidence" that this type of injury could lead to permanent brain damage and other serious side effects, including memory problems, concentration difficulties, headaches, speech problems, neurological difficulties, and other disabilities.

Also this month, 300 former NFL players sued the NFL, their teams, and, in certain cases, Riddell, for their traumatic brain injuries.

If you believe that your brain injury could have been prevented if only a product manufacturer or another party hadn't been negligent or failed to do its job, you should speak with an experienced products liability lawyer today. A seemingly mild concussion may later reveal serious, long-term repercussions, as can repeat concussions, which is not uncommon when playing football at the professional level. Unfortunately, a football player whose concussion symptoms end up going away after a few minutes might end up playing again during the same game or, after taking time off to recover, be given the go ahead to play even though he isn't fully healed. Both of these situations can up the chances of more serious, permanent injury developing.

It wasn't until the last couple years that the NFL started to taking the long-term effects of concussions seriously. Why did they wait so long considering that for decades there have been studies connecting cognitive erosion with concussions? Also, why didn't Riddell make sure that the helmets it was making were strong enough to protect football players' heads upon impact?

Duerson's Son Sues N.F.L. Over Handling of Concussions, The New York Times, February 23, 2012

Tony Dorsett joins former players in lawsuit against the NFL, WFAA, February 2, 2012

Ex-NFL players sue league in La. over concussions, Denver Post, February 18, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Pro Football Players Sue Helmet Maker Riddell and NFL for Traumatic Brain Injuries and Products Liability, Product Liability Law Blog, August 31, 2011

Will Your Helmet Prevent a Traumatic Brain Injury During a Winter Sports Accident?, Product Liability Law Blog, August 31, 2012

Head Injury Risk Prompts Triple Eight Distribution to Recall 30,400 Bicycle Helmets for Kids, Product Liability Law Blog, January 6, 2012

Continue reading "Riddell and NFL Sued by More Former Football Players for Concussion-Linked Brain Injuries" »

At the Gilbert Law Group, PC, we believe that kids' safety is nonnegotiable especially when it comes to consumer products that are designed specifically for them. Over the years, our child products liability law firm has helped many families recover compensation from negligent manufacturers, distributors, and sellers that endangered the lives of children, teenagers, and babies by making, releasing, and selling consumer goods that were dangerous or defective.

Unfortunately, unsafe products continue to cause injury and deaths to children. Just this month, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced a number of recalls of kids' products because of the hazards that they pose.

Last week the CPSC recalled about 31,000 Tumblekins Toys that could cause laceration and choking injuries. All Tumblekins play sets and toy vehicles are included in the recall. The federal safety agency is concerned that the toys can break into small, sharp pieces that can easily cut a child or may be easy for him/her to swallow.

The distributor of these toys is International Playthings LLC. The manufacturer is Lishui Treetoys Trading Co. Ltd. There has so far been one report of a toy breaking up into small pieces. There are no reports of injuries so far.

Whenever a manufacturer or distributor acts right away to notify the government about a product defect so that an immediate recall can be made, lives may have been saved and injuries prevented. Unfortunately, not all companies may know of a safety defect until many people have already gotten hurt. Some manufacturers may even delay reporting the hazard in order to keep making money.

Earlier this month, the CPSC recalled about 28,000 Bumbleride Indie & Indie Twin Strollers over worries that the front wheel of the stroller may crack, causing the stroller to tip and the child seated to sustain fall injuries, including head injuries. So far, 36 incidents involving the front wheel cracking have been reported. Two reports noted that the stroller tripped over, causing the riders to sustain minor injuries. The CPSC, in cooperation with importer Bumbleride Inc., is asking consumers to stop using these twin strollers right away.

Also this month, the CPSC, in cooperation with manufacturer and importer Weeplay Kids LLC, recalled about 128,000 Carter's Watch the Wear Bodysuits and Sleep 'n Play Garments because the detachable snaps on the clothing's fabric could pose a potential choking hazard to young children and babies. Fortunately, no one appears to have gotten hurt by clothing defect so far, but there have been about 30 reports of the snaps coming off the garments.

Considering that young children and babies are known to be more at risk of choking--infants and toddlers, especially are prone to put things in their mouth while unaware that they may be endangering themselves should they swallow. Our products liability lawyers are here to help children and their families recover the child injury compensation that they are owed.

Tumblekins Toys Recalled by International Playthings Due to Choking and Laceration Hazards, CPSC, February 16, 2012

Recall of Bumbleride Indie & Indie Twin Strollers, ABC Local, February 3, 2012

128,000 Carter's infant bodysuits and garments recalled for choking dangers, Consumer Reports, February 3, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Consumer Groups Coalition Ask CPSC to Recall Bumbo Baby Seat, Product Liability Law Blog, February 7, 2012

Clothing Defects: Apparel Industry Must Follow Standards for Children's Loungewear and Sleepwear, Says CPSC, Product Liability Law Blog, January 18, 2012

Can Loud Toys Impair Children's Hearing?, Product Liability Law Blog, January 12, 2012

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it is fining BMW of North America, LLC $3 million in civil penalties because it believes that the car manufacturer did not comply with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which requires that automakers report noncompliance and safety defects in a timely manner. BMW has agreed to pay the fine. Along with parent company Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW will implement revisions to its process for how to decide on recalls so that in the future, timely notification of the federal government and consumers occurs. According to federal law, all motor vehicle have to tell the NHTSA about any noncompliance or safety defect within five days of discovery. The automaker must also act swiftly to conduct a recall.

Our auto products liability law firm cannot stress enough the importance that automakers take prompt action to notify the government and consumers about safety defects that could increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash. The longer an automaker waits to announce a safety issue, the greater the chance of personal injury or wrongful death.

The NHTSA claims that upon looking at BMW's 16 motor vehicle recalls in 2010, it found that the car manufacturer did not abide by federal law when it came to meeting safety reporting requirements. Also, key information appeared to be missing from some of the car company's initial recall filings. The NHTSA says that although this issue was brought to BMW's attention every time it was identified, the automaker would still take awhile to provide the missing information.

For instance, ClaimsJournal.com says that out of the 16 recalls that it announced that year, in only six of the recalls was BMW able to report how many motor vehicles were affected and how many would likely be recalled. The automaker was able to provide the mandatory chronology of events in just five of the 16 reports. Only one of these five reports did not have dates or other important information missing. NHTSA said that BMW took on average more than 30 dates to provide the "fundamental" information that it failed to initially provide in its recall updates.

One need only look at Toyota's delays in reporting safety issues--some to do with the faulty gas pedals that were believed to place many of its vehicles at risk of sudden acceleration--to see the repercussions that may occur from not reporting a defect and/or recalling the affected vehicles immediately. Over the past few years, Toyota has been contending with numerous auto defects lawsuits and wrongful death complaints from dozens of plaintiffs claiming that vehicles accelerated out of control because gas pedals got stuck and/or got caught in ill-flitting floor mats. Toyota would go on to recall millions of vehicles as a result of this auto defect.

In 2010, NHTSA at first fined Toyota the maximum penalty of $16.4M because the automaker failed to notify the safety agency within five days of discovering about the "sticky gas pedal" problem. Later that year, however, the government fined Toyota another $16.050 million and $16.375, respectively, over its delays to report safety defects.

NHTSA: BMW Fined $3M for Untimely 2010 Recalls, Claims Journal, February 13, 2012

BMW to Pay $3 Million in Civil Penalties for Untimely Reporting of 2010 Recalls, NHTSA, February 10, 2012

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

More Blog Posts:
SUV Rollover Risk Prompts Toyota to Recall 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUVs, Products Liability Law Blog, April 19, 2010

Toyota Motor Corp. to Pay $32.425M Penalties Over Auto Recalls, Products Liability Law Blog, December 22, 2010

Recently Recalled Honda Civic Blamed in Georgia Air Bag Defect Lawsuit, Products Liability Law Blog, December 31, 2011

Continue reading "NHTSA Fines BMW $3M for Not Reporting in a Timely Manner Safety Defects that Led to 2010 Recalls " »

U.S. PIRG, the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, Kids in Danger, and Consumers Union have written a letter to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission asking it to recall the Bumbo Baby Seat. Used to prop babies in a sitting position before they can do so on their own, millions of parents have bought this infant product for their babies. However, the Bumbo Baby Seat has also been linked to many fall accident-related injuries. A number of child products liability lawsuits have been filed as a result. Baby ages 3-to-10 months were affected.

For example, one couple filed a Texas products liability lawsuit after their 9-month-old son sustained a skull fracture when he fell out of his seat. Lucy and Kevin Ferrell said that when their son arched his back, he ended up flipping sideways out of the seat, onto the table, and off it. Retail Toys R Us has even named a defendant for knowingly carrying an infant product linked to injuries.

While the CPSC is aware of the safety risks involved, they have not put out a recall since 2007 even though the number of infants injured from the Bumbo seats has continued to grow. At least 45 babies have fallen from the infant chairs when they'd been placed above ground level. Also, there are reports of at least 17 babies sustaining skull fractures since the 2007 recall. Another 50 got hurt while getting out of the Bumbo seats that had either been placed on the ground or at an undocumented height. It doesn't help that the Bumbo seats can tip over easily. Also, according to the CPSC, even when used according to the directions provided, there are babies still getting hurt because of their Bumbo seats.

The consumer groups are concerned that serious injuries are happening even when the product is used for the purpose intended and in the correct manner (on the ground, not on an elevated surface.) They also noted that while there are no testing requirements or safety standard for this kind of product, unlike Bumbo International other manufactures of similar infant products have changed their design to address the safety risks involved. Almost 4 million Bumbo baby seats have been sold in the US since the last 9 years.

Skull Fractures
A skull fracture is usually caused by a severe blow or impact. Depending on the type of fracture it is, brain injury may even result.

There is no reason why a product designed for babies shouldn't be safe for them to use. For skull fractures or other injuries to occur when the product is used as directed is inexcusable.

Feds Issue Warning on Bumbo Baby Seats as Injuries Mount, The Consumer Chronicle, November 23, 2011

Bumbo recall urged by consumer groups, Boston, February 7, 2012

Did Bumbo ignore child safety profits?, Reuters, December 14, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Registering Your Kid's Products Can Help You Find Out About Dangerous Defects, Product Liability Law Blog, December 12, 2011

New Crib Safety Standards Go Into Effect Today, Product Liability Law blog, June 28, 2011

Crib Bumpers: Are They Safe for Babies?, Product Liability Law blog, April 30, 2011

Continue reading "Consumer Groups Coalition Ask CPSC to Recall Bumbo Baby Seat" »