Product Liability Law Blog

Honda has just recalled its 2001 Honda Civic, as part of an expansion of an earlier recall involving defective driver's side air bags. This 10-year-old model is the same one that college student Kristy Williams was in on April 2010 when while stopped at a traffic light the vehicle's frontal air bags suddenly deployed, sending razor sharp metal pieces into the left side of her neck as the driver's side air bag exploded.

Williams' carotid artery was cut and she began losing a great deal of blood. She also broke her left arm. She then spent two weeks in the ICU where she suffered from seizures and a heart attack while undergoing multiple surgeries.

Williams' Georgia auto products liability attorney has said that Honda should have recalled the 2001 Honda Civic sooner and that this could have prevented the college student from getting hurt. Honda has settled Williams' Georgia air bag defect lawsuit for an undisclosed amount. However, Williams has been left with a six-inch scar on her neck and because of her injury she will no longer be able to become a police officer.

Honda announced its expanded recall earlier this month--its fifth one over the same defect since 2008. 20 car accidents and 2 deaths related to this air bag safety issue have been reported in the US since 2009.

The automaker explained that should the driver's side air bag go off with too much force, its metal inflator casing could rupture. Seeing as the casing holds an explosive propellant, the metal from the casing could turn into shrapnel pieces and fly into the driver.

The autos named in this month's Honda air bag defect recall include the:
• Honda Civic ('01,'02,'03 models)
• Acura 3.2 CL ('03 model)
• Honda Accord (certain '01 and '02 models)
• Acura 3.2 TL ('02 and '03 models)
• Honda Odyssey ("01, '02, '03 models)
• Honda CR-V ('02 and '03 models)

Air bags are supposed to be designed to protect passengers, not cause them serious injury. For an air bag to deploy at the wrong time and without warning can prove extremely catastrophic and even fatal.

Serious air bag injuries can include traumatic brain injury, neck injuries, chest injuries, impact injuries, shrapnel injuries, hearing loss, blindness, thoracic trauma, burn injuries, lacerations, arm fractures, leg fractures, and abrasions.

How Honda's faulty air bags maimed a Georgia student, USA Today, December 20, 2011

Honda Recalls 304,000 Cars Globally Over Air Bag Concerns, ABC News, December 2, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Air Bag Defect Prompts Honda to Recall another 273,000 Autos, Product Liability Law Blog, November 30, 2011

Serious Airbag Defect Leads Honda to Recall 440,000 More Civics, Accords, and Acura TL's, Product Liability Law Blog, July 31, 2009

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

Continue reading "Recently Recalled Honda Civic Blamed in Georgia Air Bag Defect Lawsuit " »

Two automakers have announced auto recalls over unrelated brake problems. Honda Motor Corp. is recalling about 126,000 GL-1800 motorcycles (2001 and 2012 models) while Subaru of America is recalling approximately 32,000 vehicles (2012 models of the Outback, Legacy, and Impreza). So far, no related injuries or traffic crashes have been reported. However, if you or someone you loved was injured in a collision involving any of these vehicles and you believe that faulty brakes may have played a role, please contact our auto defect law firm immediately.

The Honda recall is over a safety issue involving the secondary brake master cylinder, which may cause brake dragging. If this happens, a motorcycle accident may happen.

The car manufacturer has received 26 complaints over this safety issue, including 2 involving motorcycle fires. Honda says that only 4% of the vehicles that have been recalled are carrying the defective brake part.

This recall comes on the heels of Honda's one last week over 273,000 vehicles and a side air bag defect that could cause the safety device to deploy too forcefully during an accident. Last week's recall is the fifth one the automaker has announced over this safety issue, which now has affected nearly 2 million autos.

Meantime, Subaru has received 112 reports of problems involving a faulty brake master cylinder that could cause the brake pedal to go further than expected. If this were to happen, the driver might not be able to gauge exactly how much pressure he/she needs to apply to quickly stop the vehicle. The automaker says that only about 3,000 of the vehicles that contain the defective part were sold, while the rest are still headed for or are at dealer lots.

For both recalls, customers can take their Honda motorcycles and Subaru cars to a dealer where they will inspect the vehicles and replace any defective parts.

In other auto recall news, a power-steering problem has prompted Nissan to recall 7,365 Rogue compact crossovers (2011 model). This safety issue involves a circuit board that may have been improperly installed on the electric power-steering assist control unit. If the circuit board fails and the assist feature stops working, the driver may have to apply more force to steer the motor vehicle, which can increase the risk of a collision.

Unfortunately, not all auto defects end up as part of a recall. Or, if they do, it may not be until after a deadly crash has already happened. If you or your loved one was injured in a car collision because an automaker made an unsafe vehicle, there may be grounds for auto products liability or wrongful death damages. There may also may be other liable parties, such as the dealer that sold you the vehicle or a maintenance repair shop that failed to properly repair the auto.

You should retain the services of a law firm that has a thorough understanding of auto products liability. Going after a car manufacturer can be tough, and you want your auto defect lawyers to have the skills, resources, and knowledge to do the job right.

Subaru, Honda, recall vehicles due to brake issues, CBS News, December 5, 2011

2011 Nissan Rogue recalled for power-steering issue, Newsday, December 5, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Air Bag Defect Prompts Honda to Recall another 273,000 Autos, Product Liability Law Blog, November 30, 2011

Honda Expands Air Bag Recall with Another 833,000 Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, May 3, 2011

Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States, Product Liability Law Blog, March 4, 2011

In its fifth recall over the same auto defect since 2008, Honda is recalling another 273,00 motor vehicles because of a faulty air-bag deployment system. This latest announcement ups the number of autos affected to almost 2 million.

The safety issue involves the driver's side air bag, which could deploy in too forceful a manner during a crash. If this were to happen, the metal inflator casing, which holds explosive propellant, might rupture, causing pieces of shrapnel to burst forth to potentially kill the driver. Honda also will inspect another 603,000 motor vehicles to check whether defective parts were used to fix autos that had been involved in traffic crashes.

Two deaths and 18 injuries have been linked to this air bag safety issue. The automaker says it decided to announce another recall after finding out about yet another driver who had gotten hurt. Honda is calling this safety defect a "serious matter."

Air Bag Defects
Our air bag defect lawyers are familiar with the serious injuries that can result because this safety device malfunctioned. Air bags are there to protect vehicle occupants. They are supposed to deploy during serious crashes. When an airbag doesn't go off upon impact, this can cause serious injury to the victim, who may end up hitting the steering wheel or crashing through the windshield. If the airbag deploys at the wrong angle or too slowly this too can cause serious injuries. An air bag that goes off when it isn't supposed to, such as while the driver is on a freeway and hasn't been involved in the crash, can also prove dangerous. The driver, at this point, could end up involved in a traffic crash because he or she cannot see the road and may have a hard time maneuvering the vehicle with the air bag fully inflated in front of the steering wheeling or pushing against him/her from the side of the vehicle.

Car manufacturers know how important proper deployment of an air bag is to saving people's lives and it is their job to make sure that this safety device is free from any defects that could cause serious injuries or wrongful death. You should retain the serves of a personal injury law firm that that is experienced with dealing with auto products liability cases involving air bag defects.

Our air bag defect law firm is not afraid to pursue large auto manufacturers for damages on our clients' behalf. There is no reason why you need to foot your medical expenses and other related costs because an automaker was negligent.

Honda Adds 273,000 Vehicles to Long-Running Air Bag Recall, NY Times, December 2, 2011

More Hondas, Acuras to be recalled over deadly air bag problem, Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2011

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

Honda Expands Air Bag Recall with Another 833,000 Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, May 3, 2011

Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States, Product Liability Law Blog, March 4, 2011

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened a formal probe into whether General Motors's Chevy Volts' batteries are at risk of catching fire after they are involved in a serious car crash. While GM has stated that its vehicle is not a fire hazard, the NHTSA remains committed to continuing its safety defect investigation until it reaches its own conclusions.

Safety officials began to worry about a possible fire risk after a Volt that was parked in a test facility caught fire, causing damage to other parked autos. That battery had been punctured and its coolant line ruptured during a side-impact collision test in May.

In the last several days, one of the Volt battery packs that was under observation following a crash test did catch fire, while another one that was also crash-tested let out sparks and smoke. Another battery that underwent a crash test several months ago also had burst into flames. (GM claims NHTSA failing to drain one of the batteries that caught fire of energy after crash-testing it, which is a step the automaker would have taken.)

The NHTSA says there have been no Volt-related fires in roadway crashes reported thus far. The Volt is one of 8,000 cars that are plug-in electric cars.

While testing of the Volt hasn't raised any red flags about other electric autos, the NHTSA does want auto manufacturers to offer more specific data about battery testing for these types of vehicles.

Auto Defects and Car Fires
Any auto that catches fire is dangerous for those in and around the vehicle. It is therefore essential that cars and their parts do not possess any auto defects that raise the risk of a car bursting into flames--especially following a traffic crash.

Couple an auto defect that is a fire hazard with a tank of gasoline and the consequences can prove catastrophic, further exacerbating any serious injuries that may have already been sustained by any victims. Rescue efforts may become hampered, as emergency workers attempt to stay alive while trying to pull the driver and any occupants from the motor vehicle.

If a crash victim is lucky enough to survive the car fire, he or she may have to cope with the excruciating pain that comes with serious burn injuries that can leave the victim seriously disfigured and disabled for life. Recovery can be a very long and costly process.

Our auto products liability law firm represent clients throughout the US that were injured as a result of safety defects that contributed to causing the serious personal injuries and wrongful deaths.

Statement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration On Formal Safety Defect Investigation of Post-Crash Fire Risk in Chevy Volts, NHTSA, November 25, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Illinois Auto Defect Lawsuit Blames Ford For Truck Fire That Burned House Down, Product Liability Law Blog, September 21, 2011

Auto Defects: Fire Hazards Prompt General Motors and Chrysler to Recall Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, June 8, 2010

Ford Recall and GM Chevrolet Fire Incidents Rekindle Fire Hazard Concerns, Product Liability Law Blog, February 13, 2008

Continue reading "NHTSA Probing Whether GM Chevrolet Volt's Lithium-Ion Batteries Pose a Fire Hazard" »

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 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

A woman whose trailer home caught on fire when her neighbor's Ford F-150 pickup caught fire is suing the automaker for Illinois automotive products liability. Guadalupe Mendez lost her home on September 12, 2006. At the time, the trailer house, which she had bought four years before, was nearly paid off. Losing her house left her and her two sounds, then 13 and 9, with a car and the clothes on their back.

In her Illinois auto defect lawsuit, Mendez Is accusing Ford of knowing that there was something wrong with the switch for the truck's cruise control system but doing nothing to remedy the problem. Mendez's believes that this auto defect is what started the fire.

Mendez is not the first person to file an auto products liability complaint against Ford over this safety issue. Similar auto defect lawsuits have been filed in Texas, Michigan, and San Francisco. Also a defendant in Mendez's complaint is Texas Instruments, which manufactured the switch.

Per Mendez's Illinois auto defect complaint, the fire, which gutted the Ford F-150, likely occurred because of a defect in the cruise control system that allows electrical current to run through the switch even when the vehicle isn't on. Also, even though only one-half amp of power is required by the system, it is constantly getting 15 amps of power, which can cause it to overheat and a fire to start up in parked pickups.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recalled about 17.5 million Ford autos in the last 12 years for issues linked to the faulty control system. However, the NHTSA believes that there still may be several million vehicles with this auto defect that are currently in use. Many Ford owners may not be aware their vehicle has this safety issue--especially if they bought their autos second-hand.

A car fire can be incredibly dangerous for the occupants in a vehicle and those in the area at the time. A motor vehicle that catches fire is at serious risk of exploding--especially when the gas tank is involved. This can lead to not just the destruction of the vehicle but to serious burn injuries and even deaths.

The Ford F-150 is not the only Ford vehicle that has been linked to faulty cruise control systems. Other Ford autos that have been recalled:

• Excursion ('00 and '03 models)
• Mazda-B-Series ('98-'02 models)
• Navigator ('98-'02 models)
• Expedition ('97 to '02 models)
• Windstar ('95-'03 models)
• Mountaineer ('95-02' models)
• Explorer Sport and Sport Trac ('01-'02 models)
• Explorer (95'-02 models)
• Ranger (''95 - 03 models)
• Mercury Capri ('94 models)
• F53 Motorhome ('94-'02 models)
• Bronco ('93-'96 models)
• Mark VIII ('93-'98 models)
• Taurus SHO ('93-'95 models)
• F Series (>8500GVW Diesel) ('93-'97, '99-'03 models)
• Blackwood ('02-'03 models)
• Lightning ('03-'04 models)
• F Series (150-550) ('93-'03 models)
• Crown Victory/Grand Marquis/Town Car ('92-'98 models)
• E Series (Econolines) ('92-93 models)

Auto manufacturers can be held liable for auto defects that cause serious personal injuries or wrongful deaths. You want to work with an experienced auto products liability law firm that has the resources, knowledge, and team to help you recover the damages that you are owed.

Lawsuit: Defect in Ford's cruise control burned down Aurora home, The Beacon-News/Chicago Sun-Times, September 22, 2011

NHTSA Repeats Caution to Owners of Various Recalled Ford Vehicles on Fire Risk, NHTSA, October 21, 2010

Center for Auto Safety

More Blog Posts:
Ford and Chrysler Among Latest Automakers to Recall Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, January 3, 2011

Ford Recall and GM Chevrolet Fire Incidents Rekindle Fire Hazard Concerns,
Product Liability Law Blog, February 13, 2011

Auto Defects: California Assembly Approves Bill that Would Bar Rental Car Companies from Selling or Renting Out Recalled Vehicles Until They Are Repaired, Product Liability Law Blog, April 28, 2011

The parents of a teenage girl are suing General Motor for her Texas SUV rollover accident injuries. The teen and other students were riding a Chevrolet Suburban in 2007 when the teacher, who was driving the vehicle, lost control of the sport utility vehicle, which then rolled over.

Even though she was properly restrained, Rachel and Matt Blalock's daughter was thrown from the SUV. Another teenager who was also ejected from the vehicle (police reports say she wasn't wearing a seat belt), died.

In their Texas auto products liability complaint, the Blalocks claim that the SUV did not provide adequate restraint or sufficient occupant protection from rollover accident. They also believe that the Chevy Suburban, which they contend was dangerous and defective, lacked the adequate safeguards to prevent ejection. They are accusing General Motors of failing conduct adequate engineering analysis or testing.

The Blalocks are seeking damages for their daughter's mental trauma, emotional distress, pain and suffering, disfigurement, impairment, medical costs, loss of earning capacity, loss of consortium, and other damages.

SUV Rollover Lawsuits
If you or someone you love was injured in an SUV rollover crash, the sooner you retain the services of an experienced auto products liability law firm that knows how to pursue your recovery, the better. There is a lot of evidence that will need to be gathered and preserved, as well as many questions that witnesses, accident reconstructionists, other experts, police, doctors, and others will have to answer.

Unfortunately, there are auto defects and deficiencies can result in the failure to protect occupants during a rollover crash. Motor vehicle manufactures know this and it is their job to make sure that they do everything possible so that passengers aren't seriously injured or killed. Proper seat belt protection and roofs that are solid enough that they won't result in collapse (known as "roof crush"), and advanced window glazing to protect occupants during impact, are among the safety features that can be implemented.

Ejection Mitigation
Studies show that occupants that aren't ejected from an auto during a collision have a higher survival rate. Fortunately, beginning in 2013, car manufacturers will have to start installing "ejection mitigation" systems in all motor vehicles. All new autos will have to include this feature by 2018. This means better side air bags and window glazing. Also per the new NHTSA-issued rule, motor vehicles weighing less than 10,000 lbs will have to establish a countermeasure that would stop unbelted adults from being able to go 4 inches beyond the opening of a side window during a collision. NHTSA says about 476 serious injuries and 373 deaths could be prevented every year with these new safety measures.

Lawsuit against GM filed over deadly Suburban rollover, Southeast Texas Record, August 15, 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation Issues New Ejection Mitigation Rule, NHTSA, January 13, 2011

Related Web Resources:
NHTSA on Ejection Mitigation (PDF)

TOP SAFETY PICKS 2011, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

More Blog Posts:
Parents File Massachusetts $7M SUV Rollover Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi Motors Over Teenager's 2009 Wrongful Death, Product Liability Law Blog, April 20, 2011

US DOT Issues Rule to Reduce Vehicle Ejections During Rollover Accidents, Product Liability Law Blog, February 4, 2011

Ford SUV Rollover Lawsuit: Jury Awards Baseball Player's Family $131 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, September 27, 2011

It is important to note that just because a vehicle has been recalled doesn't mean it is defect-free and sometimes, it can take a motor vehicle crash for an auto defect to be discovered and a recall announced. In an ideal world, safety issues would be detected before anyone were to get hurt. If you believe that a car accident resulting in serious injury or death was caused by a vehicle malfunction or an auto defect, you may have grounds for pursuing a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. Contact our auto products liability law firm right away and ask for your free case evaluation.

Recent Auto Recalls:
Honda recently recalled 2.5 million vehicles because problems with the automatic transmission could cause the engine to unexpectedly cut out or the parking gear to malfunction. This risk is greatest if quick transmission shifts are made between the drive, neutral, and reverse positions. The transmission control modules in these autos will have to be reprogrammed. The automaker says that no injuries or deaths related to this safety problem have been reported. Affected vehicles include the 2005-2008 Element, the 2007-2010 CR-V, and 2005-2010 Accords (models with cylinder engines).

Meantime, air bag safety issues and pressure from the NHTSA have prompted Ford to recall another 1.2 million pickup trucks. The automaker had recalled approximately 135,000 F-150's (2005-2006 models) in the US earlier this year over concerns that the air bag on the driver's side might deploy without warning. Although Ford had said the original recall was sufficient to address the problem, the NHTSA accused the car manufacturer of distorting the data and said that based on its own review, the Ford trucks had the most number of inadvertent air bag deployments it had ever encountered. Ford, however, refuses to call the problem an actual air bag defect.

Ford is not the only automaker to recently announce a recall recently over a problem with air bags. Chrysler has recalled over 367,000 2008 Dodge and Chrysler minivans because their air bags may go off without warning. This is an expansion of a recall announced earlier this year over the same auto defect.

It was just several days ago that Toyota is recalling 32 of its 2011 Lexus Rx350 vehicles because of a brake problem that could cause an auto accident. The SUVs brake actuators are not calibrated correctly, which could stop the brakes on the right front wheel from being applied properly when vehicle stability control or automatic anti-lock braking is activated.

Volvo is also recalling some of its vehicles. The automaker says over 8,000 of its S60s that were made between March 8, 2006 and May 16, 2007 are affected. Volvo says that the vehicle could become hard to maneuver if there is an increase of pressure that impacts the power steering reservoir hoses, which are not correctly routed. The car manufacturer will replace the hoses for free.

In other auto recall news, Nissan says no accidents have been linked to safety issue involving 20,000 of its Altima cars (2011, 2012) in the US. Some of the autos may have transverse link bolts that weren't correctly tightened. If they come completely loose completely, a driver could have a hard time controlling the vehicle.

While no injuries or deaths have been linked to these latest recalls, these safety problems can cause car crashes. You want to work with an auto defects law firm that knows how to determine and prove liability and isn't afraid to go after a major auto manufacturer to make sure that you obtain all the personal injury or wrongful death compensation that you are owed. At the Gilbert Law Group, we represent clients nationally and have recovered over $150 million in verdicts and settlements for injured consumers. We even have an in-house engineering staff to assist our auto defects lawyers with their products liability cases.

Related Web Resources:
Nissan recalls about 20,000 Altima sedans in the U.S., Reuters, August 1, 2011

Toyota recalls 2011 Lexus RX 350 for brake issues, Consumer Reports, August 1, 2011

Honda To Recall 2.5 Million Cars on Software Issue, KTLA, August 6, 2011

Ford F-150 air bag recall expanded to 1.2 million trucks, Consumer Reports, April 15, 2011

Chrysler recalls 376,000 minivans for air bag defect, USA Today, August 4, 2011

Volvo recalls 8,406 S80s due to power steering problem, Consumer Reports, August 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Air Bag Safety Issue Prompts Ford to Expand Recall of F-150 Pickup Trucks to 1.2 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, April 14, 2011

Toyota Recalls 245,000 Lexus in the US, Product Liability Law Blog, January 26, 2011

More than 19 Million Autos Recalled in 2010 in About 600 Campaigns, Product Liability Law Blog, December 29, 2010

Police are saying that the reason the driver of the tour bus taking Indian tourists to Niagara Falls lost control of the vehicle was because a tire blew out. The catastrophic New York bus accident claimed the lives of two women, while injuring the 34 other passengers and the bus driver. Some of the more serious injuries included head wounds, fractures, and internal bleeding.

The bus belongs to Bedore Tours. Although the tour had started in New York City, the bus had left Washington DC and was headed to the falls when the New York tire blowout happened on Interstate 390 about 55 miles from Rochester. The bus flipped over, falling down a wooded median.

According to Dan Ronan of the American Bus Association, the tires on the bus, which is a 2007 model that was last inspected at the end of June, were only 2 months old. State transportation officials say there are no signs that drinking, speeding, driver fatigue, or any other violations by the driver.

Tire Blowouts
As our New York tire defect lawyers have said before, it is so important that tires are free from wear and tear, design defects, or manufacturing flaws that could cause a tire to blow out, experience tread separation, or come off while the vehicle is moving. Tire blowouts can prove deadly, causing the motorist to lose control of the vehicle, collide with another auto, rollover, or careen off the road and on an embankment.

If you or someone you love was injured in a tire blowout accident, you should speak with an experienced auto products liability lawyer right away. If the accident happened because the tire failed—depending on the specifics of what happened and why it happened—you may have reason for filing a tire defect lawsuit against the tire manufacturer or the automaker. You also may have reason to file a personal injury or wrongful death case against a negligent driver and other parties who played a role in the car crash.

Now that we are in the middle of summer, it is more important than ever to make sure that your tires are safe for use. In addition to the fact that more people are on the road, with many of them taking long trips, hot temperatures can cause an already faulty tire to blow out.

Tire blowout eyed in latest fatal tour bus crash, Reuters, July 18, 2011

Tire blowout eyed in fatal NY bus crash, CBS News/AP, July 17, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Safercar.gov

American Bus Association

Bedore Tours

Tire Care and Summer Safety, Weather.com

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

Defective Tire Lawsuit Can Proceed in Arizona Even if Rollover Accident Occurred in Mexico, Says Court, Product Liability Law Blog, August 15, 2009

Continue reading "New York Tire Blowout: 2 Killed in Tour Bus Crash Carrying Indian Tourists" »

If you or someone you love was injured in an accident while riding a conversion van, you should speak with an experienced auto products liability law firm immediately. Unfortunately, some of these full-size cargo vans that have been fitted with "luxury" amenities for camping and road trips may have sacrificed safety for utility and accessory. If this is the case, you may have reason to file a conversion van accident lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Conversion Vans
While these passenger vans were likely made by a large automaker, a van conversion company probably overhauled their interiors. "Upgrades" might include raised roofs, captain chairs, sofa chairs, kitchens, fold-out beds, TVs, and/or bathrooms.

What many consumers don't realize is that many conversion companies are not experienced auto manufacturers and may not even be are that they are supposed to abide by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (Even if you bought your car at the dealer, it was still likely a third party van conversion operation that renovate it). To make room for these additional amenities, conversion van companies may even take out some of the most basic safety features in the vehicles, which can allow vehicle occupants to suffer serious injuries during a collision.

Examples of safety defects and design flaws found in conversion vans:

• Seats that are prone to come off the car during a crash


• Seat belts that can easily rip apart


• Weak roofs that lack the structure, strength, and support found in regular vehicles


• Raised roofs that come right off the van or shatter during a collision


• Enlarged "picture windows" that are prone to break during an accident

Unfortunately, many van conversion companies lack the experience, resources, technology, and knowledge to properly engineer and test their vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

More Blog Posts:
Kia Ordered to Pay $40M Alabama Seat Belt Defect Verdict Over "False Latching" in Teenager's 2004 Wrongful Death, Product Liability Law Blog, June 30, 2011

Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States, Product Liability Law Blog, March 4, 2011

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Presents New Roof Strength Rating System for Autos, Product Liability Law Blog, March 25, 2009

Continue reading "Auto Products Liability: Conversion Van Safety Defects Can Prove Catastrophic During a Traffic Crash" »

Chastity Glisson's family is suing Toyota for Florida auto products liability and wrongful death. The 29-year-old died on August 25 from carbon monoxide poisoning when she left her Lexus running in her garage. Also nearly killed in the CO poisoning accident was Timothy Maddock, who was Glisson's boyfriend. He is suing the automaker for his debilitating injuries.

Glisson's mom Kimberlin Nickles says that the reason the tragic accident happened was because the Lexus's Smart Key system allowed the car to keep running silently. She says that her daughter either left the car running by accident or thought she had shut down the Lexus but in fact did not. Because Toyota designed the vehicle to be soundless and smooth, Glisson was not aware that the vehicle's engine was still running. It didn't help that she had brought the key fob into the house with her.

Nickles believes that Toyota's Smart Key system is a convenience that brings with it certain safety risks, such as the risk of CO if the vehicle is inadvertently kept running. She claims Toyota ignored such "foreseeable risks" and failed to install a switch that can automatically shuts down the vehicle.

Nickles is not the first person to complain about Smart Keys. Just last year, another woman filed her Toyota Smart Key lawsuit claiming New York auto products liability and personal injury. Mary Rivera says she sustained brain damage, can no longer walk, and suffers from communication and cognitive challenges because she was exposed to CO monoxide when she didn't shut down the car. She says that the Smart Key design's keyless ignition system makes it easy to forget to turn off the engine. Rivera now requires full-time care. Ernest Codelia Jr. died from the CO poisoning during that incident.

The Toyota Smart Key is a fob attached to a key ring that can start up a car automatically if it is within a certain rage of the vehicle. No actual key has to be inserted in the ignition.

Seeing potential safety hazard, regulators rethink ignition rule, BendBulletin, February 18, 2011

Smart Key Blamed for Another Death, Courthouse News, June 21, 2011

Examining the Drawbacks of Smart Key Fobs, NY Times, February 11, 2011

Examining the drawbacks of Smart Key Fobs, NY Times, February 11, 2011

Related Web Resource:
Toyota Motor Corporation

Safercar.gov

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

Another 2.1 Toyota Vehicles Recalled Over Sudden Unintended Acceleration Problems, Product Liability Law Blog, February 28, 2011

Seven years after 16-year-old Tiffany Stabler was killed in a deadly car crash, a jury has awarded a $40 million Alabama auto products liability verdict to her family over her wrongful death. Stabler died on July 4, 2004 after she was ejected from the used 1999 Kia Sephia that her dad had given her just two months before on her birthday. The plaintiff's claim that because the seat belt was defective, it failed to keep Tiffany "buckled up" when she lost control of the vehicle, causing her to sustain fatal injuries.

Although Kia had issued a recall in 2002 over this "false latching" defect, that notice was only for vehicle models 1995 to 1998. In their Alabama seat belt defect lawsuit, Stabler's family contended that Kia did know that the seat belts in its 1999 and 2000 models had the same safety issue but failed to also recall those vehicles.

False Latching
With the "false latching" defect, a seat belt may appear, feel, and sound like it is properly secured in the buckle when in fact it is not. Even the slightest force can cause the buckle, which isn't latched properly, to come out of the latch plate. This leaves the vehicle occupant unbelted and not properly restrained, which can prove catastrophic during a car accident. A passenger who is unrestrained by a seat belt can end up ejected from the vehicle, thrown through the windshield or windows, or against the roof of the car. Traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, crush injuries, organ damage, or death can result.

Some Other Seat Belt Defects:

• Torn or ripped webbing: A defect in the belt causes the webbing to rip or tear, which can leave the vehicle occupant without adequate restraint protection.


• Inertial latching: The seat belt is more prone to coming unbuckled during a car crash.


• Retractor failure: When the retractor fails to hold the belt in place, too much slack can arise. This can cause the occupant to sustain serious injuries during a crash if he/she isn't adequately restrained and kept securely in place.


• Lap-only seat belts: This seat belt only restrains an occupant's lower body and does not protect against chest, abdominal, spinal, or head injuries.

Defective seatbelt flaw ruling costs Kia $40 million, Torque News, June 28, 2011

Related Web Resources:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Car Reviews and Ratings, Consumer Reports

Motor Vehicle Recalls, Safercar.gov

More Blog Posts:
Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States, Product Liability Law Blog, March 4, 2011

Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 31, 2011

Seat Belt Syndrome: Child Safety Continues to Take a Back Seat, Product Liability Law Blog, November 14, 2009

The family of Rusty Lamont Hendriks is suing Ford for Texas products liability and wrongful death. The Hendriks claim that the auto manufacturer made a defective jack, which is why the family's Ford Freestar minivan fell on him.

Hendriks suffered fatal injuries on March 7 while trying to repair the Ford vehicle. He used the scissors jack, which was designed, made, and marketed for the van. According to his family's Texas wrongful death lawsuit, he placed the jack where the vehicle manual had designated that it should go but that the repair device still failed, causing the van to land on him.

The plaintiffs are accusing Ford of products liability negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, marketing flaws, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and misrepresentation. They say that Ford Motor Company had received other complaints about the scissors jack, which is too short, not well constructed, and unable to lift the weight of the vehicles that they are made for. They want damages for Hendriks's wrongful death, physical impairment, mental anguish, severe pain, medical costs, and burial and funeral bills. They also want damages for their humiliation, disfigurement, pain and suffering, income loss, mental anguish, and loss of consortium.

Auto manufacturers must make sure that all the parts that they make for their vehicles are free from any defects that could cause serious injuries or death. This includes not just auto parts but tools such as a scissors jack that a car owner is supposed to use when needing to raise the vehicle from the ground to make repairs.

Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Ford for defective jack after man crushed by van, Setexasrecord.com, June 6, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Safety Recalls, Safercar.org

Ford Motor Company

More Blog Posts:
Parents File Massachusetts $7M SUV Rollover Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi Motors Over Teenager's 2009 Wrongful Death, Product Liability Law Blog, April 20, 2011

Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States, Product Liability Law Blog, March 4, 2011

Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 31, 2011

Continue reading "Products Liability Lawsuit: Ford Sued Over Defective Jack in Wrongful Death of Man" »

A federal judge has scheduled the civil trial for Toyota sudden acceleration lawsuit of Van Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for February 19, 2013. The Utah wrongful death case is the first of hundreds of auto products liability lawsuits claiming that acceleration problems with a Toyota vehicle resulted in personal injuries or wrongful deaths.

In this case, Paul Van Alfen, 66, and Charlene Jones Lloyd, 38, were killed in a Utah car crash when the 2008 Toyota Camry they were in rammed into a wall on November 5, 2010. Van Alfen was driving the car that investigators say accelerated without warning.

Tire skid marks on the road show that he tried to stop the Toyota, which then went through a stop sign and an intersection before striking the wall. Lloyd was the fiancé of his son, who was also injured in the accident. Van Alfen's wife was also injured.

After talking to the crash survivors and witnesses, the Utah Highway Patrol determined that the gas pedal of the Toyota had gotten stuck. The model of Camry that Van Alfen had been driving was among those that were recalled because of concerns that their floor mats could get entangled with accelerator pedals.

Since 2009, Toyota has recalled millions of vehicles over concerns that sticky gas pedals, poorly designed floor mats, or other defects have caused sudden unintended acceleration accidents. The Van Alfen case is the first bellwether case over this matter in national litigation against Toyota to be scheduled for trial. Bellwether cases are significant in that their outcomes often serve as a benchmark for future lawsuits.

Toyota to face 2013 trial over sudden acceleration, Reuters, June 10, 2011

Utah case first Toyota suit to see US court, Forbes/AP, June 11, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Toyota

NHTSA

Safercar.gov

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

Another 2.1 Toyota Vehicles Recalled Over Sudden Unintended Acceleration Problems, Product Liability Law Blog, February 28, 2011

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