Product Liability Law Blog

Chrysler Group, which is primarily owned by Fiat SpA has announced the recall of 127,350 Dodger Charger and Chrysler 300 motor vehicles in the United States and Canada due potential safety issues involving the vehicles' anti-lock braking systems and electronic stability control system. The recalled vehicles are 2011 and 2012 models. The automaker says no related accidents or injuries have been reported.

According to the company's filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there is a fuse in the vehicles' power distribution center that might overheat, which could cause the electronic stability control system and the anti-lock breaks to malfunction. Should this happen, the driver could lose control of the vehicle.

In a separate announcement, Chrysler is recalling 471 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan vehicles over concerns that the vehicle's right side rear lift gate pinch sensor could malfunction. If this were to happen, the power rear door might close down on a body part rather than automatically swing back up.

A lift gate pinch sensors that works properly is supposed to prevent such crush accidents from happening. Right now, there are reportedly are no reports of injuries or deaths related to this safety issue.

Our auto products liability lawyers represent clients injured because of an auto defect that caused a car crash or injured them in some other way. Your initial case evaluation with The Gilbert Law Group is free.

Even with Chrysler's acquisition by Fiat in 2009, after it filed for federal bankruptcy protection, and now a growth in profits and sales, the automaker still hasn't been able to get rid of its "reputation for lousy quality," says the Wall Street Journal. Its newer models even received their highest ratings in a long time in the yearly reliability survey put out by Consumer Reports in 2011. Yet Chrysler must still contend with safety issues involving its older vehicles, as well as some affecting its newer autos.

For example, there have been reports of 23 complaints involving fires and Jeep Wranglers. In March, the auto manufacturer recalled close to 210,000 Jeep Liberty SUVs, 2004 and 2005 models because of possible problems with rear lower control arms that could fracture due to corrosion from the road salt used in some states.

Automakers cannot afford to make vehicles with safety issues that could potentially cause serious injuries or deaths Our auto defect attorneys know how intimidating it can be to pursue a large manufacturer for products liability damages and this is where we come in. We are an experienced auto products liability law firm that has the resources, manpower, and team of knowledgeable legal professionals and experts that can go after the financial recovery that you are owed.

Chrysler recalls minivans for tailgate pinch, USA Today, May 10, 2012

Chrysler recalls 210,000 Jeep Liberty SUVs, MSNBC, March 10, 2012

New Chrysler Battling Old Defects, Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2012

More Blog Posts:
California Motorcycle Defect Lawsuit: Man Sues BMW Claiming Bike Seat Caused Lasting Erectile Dysfunction, Product Liability Law Blog, April 29, 2012

Texas Air Bag Defect Lawsuit Seeks Damages from General Motors After Car Crash Leaves Woman with Severe Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, April 23, 2012

AUTO SAFETY AND ACCIDENT CLAIMS, Product Liability Law Blog, March 27, 2012

Motorcycle rider Henry Wolf has filed a California auto products liability lawsuit against BMW North America and Corbin-Pacific. Wolf claims that the "ridge-like" seat of his 1993 BMW bike caused him to suffer priapism. He contends that the condition, which causes a lasting erection, has been going on for 20 months now.

The case is Wolf v. BMW. The plaintiff says that he developed this dysfunction after going on a four-hour ride on his BMW bike in 2010 and the problem hasn't gone away since then. He is blaming the ribbed "banana" seat of his motorcycle for his condition.

Because of his priapism, Wolf cannot take part in sexual activity and has experienced mental and emotional suffering. He wants BMW and the seat maker to compensate him for lost income, products liability, medical costs, general damage, and emotional harm.

This is the first time that motorcycle banana-design seats have been linked to erectile dysfunction. In the past, others have blamed them for infertility and causing impotence because of vibrations and the seat's configuration. While no credible connection has been found between motorcycles and infertility, there have been studies that say one does exist.

Although Wolf's grounds for a California motorcycle defect lawsuit may be a first, bikes, like all motor vehicles, can have serious parts defects that may up the risk of catastrophic accident happening. You want to work with a products liability law firm that knows how to successfully pursue your recovery for injuries and death caused by:

• A tire blowout
• Motorcycle seat defect
• Brake problems
• Faulty accelerators
• Gas tank defects
• Motorcycle fires
• Engine problems
• Helmet defects

With just a helmet and protective clothing, motorcycle riders are much more vulnerable to serious injuries and death during a traffic crash than the occupants of motor vehicles. A motorcycle defect can cause a catastrophic collision with another vehicle or a single bike accident. The rider could get thrown from the bike, landing on the freeway (upping the risk of getting hit by oncoming traffic), onto a wall or barricade, or into another vehicle.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2010 there was a slight increase in US motorcycle deaths, with 4,502 fatalities compared to 4,469 motorcycle accident deaths in 2009. There was, however, a decline in the number of motorcycle injury victims with 82,000 injuries in 2010 compared to 90,000 the year before. Drunk driving played a factor in 1,285 motorcycle crash fatalities.

Man sues BMW for 20-month erection after bike ride, USA Today, April 29, 2012

Man sues BMW for giving him 20-month erection after motorcycle ride, Torque News, April 29, 2012

Priapism, Mayo Clinic

More Blog Posts:
Texas Air Bag Defect Lawsuit Seeks Damages from General Motors After Car Crash Leaves Woman with Severe Injuries, The Gilbert Law Group, April 23, 2012

AUTO SAFETY AND ACCIDENT CLAIMS, The Gilbert Law Group, March 27, 2012

NHTSA Proposes New Rule Tackling Keyless Ignition Dangers, The Gilbert Law Group, March 21, 2012

Continue reading "California Motorcycle Defect Lawsuit: Man Sues BMW Claiming Bike Seat Caused Lasting Erectile Dysfunction " »

The son of a woman who he claims was left incapacitated after sustaining serious injuries in a car crash is suing General Motors for Texas auto products liability. Carolyn Gill's son Rick Gill filed a personal injury complaint last month.

Per the Texas air bag defect lawsuit, Gill was traveling in a 2004 Buick Le Sabre on September 12, 2011 when she lost control of the car, which went off the road, rolled over, and landed on its side. At the time, she was seated correctly and wearing a three-point seatbelt but her air bag did not deploy.

Gill contends that GM made an unreasonably dangerous vehicle because it came with air bags that did not properly protect or restrain her, thereby violating the crashworthiness principals. She is seeking Texas auto defect damages for disfigurement, pain and suffering, mental distress, emotional trauma, impairment, loss of consortium, decreased capacity to enjoy life, interference with everyday activities, and other costs.

Crashworthiness Principals
There are two types of auto products liability lawsuit. The first one involves causation, in which a car defect causes the crash that results in serious injury or wrongful death. The second type is based on violation of the crashworthiness principals.

While it is acknowledged that some collisions are inevitable, it is still the responsibility of a car manufacturer to make sure that it gives vehicle occupants reasonable protections in the event of one. For example, a vehicle that is crashworthy should be able to allow for adequate occupant survival space while limiting how much the passenger compartment is violated upon impact, prevent occupant ejection, adequately restrain passengers, and not increase the risk of an auto fire. Air bags, seat belts, and other safety features are some of the basic elements used to enhance an auto's crashworthiness. When such safety elements are not installed or have key defects that prevent them from protecting a vehicle occupant, then a plaintiff may be able to raise questions about whether/not an auto was adequately crashworthy.

Not only are air bags essential to protecting a passenger in the event of a deadly crash, but also certain defects can cause them to be a source of injury to a victim. You want to work with an air bag defect law firm that understands the nature of air bag-involved collisions and can pinpoint what aspect of this safety feature's technology failed or was poorly designed, causing it to not deploy when needed or deploy unnecessarily.
Common injuries from air bag deployment may include eye injuries, face trauma, jaw injuries, spinal cord injuries, decapitation, rib fractures, heart damage, lung injuries, shoulder injuries, forearm injuries, and other serious injuries.

Suit against GM claims vehicle's airbags failed to deploy, The Southeast Texas Record, March 27, 2012

Air Bags, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

More Blog Posts:
Auto Safety and Accident Claims, Product Liability Law Blog, March 27, 2012

Recently Recalled Honda Civic Blamed in Georgia Air Bag Defect Lawsuit, Product Liability Law Blog, December 31, 2012

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

In the wake of the deadly 2009 San Diego, California car crash that killed four people because of Lexus sudden unintended acceleration, the US Department of Transportation is proposing that current safety standards be updated and a Break-Throttle Override' requirement implemented so that drivers are better able to stop a motor vehicle should the accelerator and brakes pedals end up pressed down simultaneously by letting the motorist still have control of the brakes. Research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that such changes would decrease the chances of a vehicle going into sudden unintended acceleration and prevent motor vehicle collisions that are caused by a trapped or stuck accelerator pedal.

If approved, auto manufacturers would have approximately two years to come into compliance with the new standard. The proposal would update current throttle control disconnection test procedures for passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks. Vehicles with a GVW of 10,000 lbs. or under would be required to include Brake-Throttle Override (BTO) system tasked with making sure the vehicle stops if the accelerator and brake pedals are applied at the same time.

Following the Lexus sudden unintended acceleration crash over 2 ½ years ago that killed four family members, Toyota proceeded to recall millions of vehicles over ill-fitting floor mats that might entrap an accelerator pedal, sticky gas pedals, and other safety issues linked to its vehicles suddenly speeding up and out of the driver's control. Numerous auto products liability and wrongful death claims were also filed following reports of hundreds of related injuries and deaths. At least one person was released from prison after it was discovered that Toyota sudden unintended acceleration and not driver negligence caused the fatal car accident he was involved in.

Toyota has since implemented a brake-override system standard, and a lot of other car manufacturers either already have such a system in place or are in the process of implementing one for their vehicles. Despite these efforts, federal transportation safety officials believe a new standard would ensure that every light truck and car sold in the US has this type of brake system in place.

Our auto products liability law firm represents clients with Lexus/Toyota sudden unintended acceleration claims in the US. We applaud the Department of Transportation's efforts to eliminate two of the main causes of SUA. However, it also has become apparent that sticky gas pedals and ill-fitting floor mats are not the only reason why a vehicle might suddenly accelerate. Of the more than 2,000 reports of Lexus and Toyota vehicles abruptly speeding up and out of control, over half of the incidents involved Toyota vehicles not included on the manufacturer's recall list.

USDOT Proposes Updated Safety Standard to Prioritize Braking Control, Reduce Risk of High-Speed Unintended Acceleration for Nation's Cars, NHTSA, April 12, 2012

Federal regulators want brake-override systems in all cars, Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration: Engineers Reportedly Discovered an Electronic Software Problem in Test Vehicle, Reports CNN, Product Liability Law Blog, February 29, 2012

Florida Auto Products Liability: Toyota Smart Key Blamed for Woman's Carbon Monoxide Death, Product Liability Law Blog, July 8, 2011

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

Continue reading "NHTSA Proposes 'Brake-Throttle Override' Standard to Prevent Unintended Acceleration Crashes" »

By Jim Gilbert and Rick Friedman

(Jim Gilbert and Rick Friedman are long-time friends and fellow members of the Inner Circle of Advocates, a select group comprised of 100 of the most elite plaintiffs' attorneys in the nation. Jim conducts a nationwide products liability and personal injury practice from Arvada, Colorado (http://www.thegilbertlawgroup.com), while Rick conducts a nationwide trial practice from offices in Anchorage, Alaska and Seattle, Washington (http://www.friedmanrubin.com). This article was jointly written by Jim and Rick after several conversations during which they compared notes on auto safety and experiences with accident claims.)

If you are ever injured or die in an accident, it will most likely occur while you are in a car. Yet most Americans know surprisingly little about what makes a car safe, what to look for when shopping for a car, and what to do to protect their rights if they are in an auto accident.

Legal obligations of vehicle manufacturers
· A manufacturer must sell vehicles that provide reasonable protection to occupants in most kinds of accidents.
· Federal law requires that all motor vehicles sold in the U.S. comply with specified crashworthiness and other safety standards.
· Federal safety standards are minimum standards and may not protect you in an accident.
· A manufacturer is civilly responsible for injuries caused by an uncrashworthy vehicle, whether or not the vehicle complies with federal safety standards.
· You may have a legitimate claim for damages against the manufacturer of a defective and unreasonably dangerous vehicle, even though you or others believe you were "at fault" in the accident; after all, manufacturers know when they design a vehicle that accidents will happen and that their vehicles must be reasonably crashworthy.

What to look for when buying a car
Available safety features (some are standard and some are costly options; your budget will determine your selection):
· Adaptive headlights: motors drive headlights to follow the path of the vehicle.
· Backup monitors: cameras or sensors allow driver to see and/or be warned of persons or objects when backing or parking.
· Blind spot detection: cameras and/or sound devices allow driver to see/be aware of vehicles in the blind spot.
· Bluetooth connectivity: allows hands-free cell phone use.
· Collision mitigation braking: radar or laser-activated application of brakes when sensing an imminent crash.
· Electronic stability control: computer reduces engine speed and/or provides wheel-selective braking when detecting a skid.
· Event data recorders: computer constantly monitors speed, braking etc. and preserves the info for a specific time period, usually about 30 seconds.
· Head-up display: projects vehicle monitors (speed, GPS, etc.) onto the windshield so the driver doesn't have to look downward.
· Head restraint upgrades: intended to reduce whiplash in rear-end collisions.
· Lane departure warning systems: warns driver who strays from lane.
· Night vision assist: near-infrared lights or thermographic cameras permit longer-ranged vision at night and provide higher performance in rain and snow.
· Pre-crash occupant positioning: removes slack from seatbelts and applies brakes in an imminent frontal type collision.
· Rollover sensors: deploy side airbags and activate pretensioners in an imminent rollover through a computer monitoring system.
· Seat belt energy management systems: allow controlled belt yielding in a crash, mitigating force on the occupant's chest.
· Sensitive airbag systems: sense the difference in size and weight of the occupants and deploy the air bags accordingly, thus reducing airbag injuries.
· Side door beams: reduce door intrusion into the passenger compartment in side-impact crashes.
· Side-curtain air bags: side airbags (curtains) deploy in certain types of collisions, providing enhanced head and upper-torso protection.
· Tire pressure monitoring: warns the driver of reduced air pressure in all tires.
· Collapsible pedals: pedals pivot away from the passenger cabin in a crash, thus mitigating foot and lower leg injuries.
· Seat belt pretensioner: tightens seatbelt to a specified load level when sensing a crash.

Good sources of safety information
· National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA)
· Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
· Consumer Reports

NHTSA 5-star vehicle rating system
The NHTSA 5-Star Safety Ratings System evaluates the safety of passenger cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks in three broad areas - frontal crash, side crash, and rollover resistance. For model year 2011, NHTSA will rate 24 passenger cars, 20 sport utility vehicles, two vans and nine pickups under the new ratings system. Overall star rating will be shown on the window sticker beginning with model year 2011.
· Frontal impact Vehicle with crash test dummies in front seats is crashed into a fixed barrier at 35 mph, which is equivalent to a head-on collision between two similar vehicles of substantially the same weight each moving at 35 mph.
· Side barrier crash Standing vehicle with belted dummy in front and rear is hit in the side by a moving 3015 pound barrier to simulate an intersection crash.
· Side pole crash Vehicle angled at 75° with belted smaller dummy representing an adult female in driver's seat, is pulled sideways at 20 mph into a 25-cm diameter pole at the driver's seating position, representing a side-impact crash involving a narrow, fixed object like a utility pole or tree.
· Rollover testing An at -rest laboratory measurement that determines how "top-heavy" a vehicle is, coupled with a severe turning maneuver on a test track that tests whether a vehicle is vulnerable to tipping up on the road.

NOTE: Despite the fact that rear collisions are frequent and can cause death or severe injuries, at present there is no crash test to simulate a rear collision, due to NHTSA's limited budget
In each test using crash test dummies, the dummies have sensors positioned at various locations to measure the amount of force that would be exerted on the human body. Each vehicle tested (not all vehicles are tested each year) is given a one-star to five-star rating, with five stars being the highest. Beginning with 2011 models, an overall 5-star rating is also used. See your vehicle's ratings here.

NHTSA announced in October 2011 the lineup of model year 2012 passenger vehicles that will be tested as part of its 5-star safety ratings program. The program's crash tests will provide consumer safety information on approximately 81 percent of model year 2012 passenger vehicles sold in the United States, while rollover tests will provide information on 92 percent of the 2012 fleet.

Significance of number of stars in NHTSA's 5-star rating program
· Frontal crash
§ 5 stars = 10% or less chance of serious injury to the head or chest
§ 4 stars = 11 to 20% chance of serious injury to the head or chest
§ 3 stars = 21 to 35% chance of serious injury to the head or chest
§ 2 stars = 36 to 45% chance of serious injury to the head or chest
§ 1 star = 46% or greater chance of serious injury to the head or chest

· Side crash (incorporated with pole crash test)
§ 5 stars = 5% or less chance of serious injury
§ 4 stars = 6% to 10% chance of serious injury
§ 3 stars = 11% to 20% chance of serious injury
§ 2 stars = 21% to 25% chance of serious injury
§ 1 star = 26% or greater chance of serious injury

· Rollover (rate is expressed as a percentage of all single vehicle accidents)
§ 5 stars = rollover rate of 10% or less
§ 4 stars = rollover rate of between 10 and 19%
§ 3 stars = rollover rate of between 20 and 29%
§ 2 stars = rollover rate of between 30 and 39%
§ 1 star = rollover rate greater than 40%

What to avoid
· Vehicles that do poorly on NHTSA, IIHS or Consumer Reports testing, evaluations or ratings.
· NHTSA recommends considering vehicles with crash avoidance technologies that meet the 5-Star Safety Ratings minimum performance tests, such as forward collision warning (FCW), lane departure warning (LDW), and electronic stability control (ESC). All of the 2011 model year vehicles currently rated have ESC as standard, except for the Nissan Versa, in which it is optional.
· Vehicles that have a poor safety record in the real world (see the above websites).

Children and vehicle safety
· Every state has its own laws regarding child restraint regulations.
· You should carefully follow the recommendations of your car seat manufacturer.

NHTSA recommends as follows:
· Birth to12 months: always in an approved, rear-facing seat
· 1 to 3 years: keep in rear facing seat as long as possible until the child reaches the height or weight limits prescribed by the seat manufacturer, then in a forward-facing seat with a harness.
· 4 to 7 years: keep in a forward-facing seat with harness until the child reaches the height or weight limits prescribed by the seat manufacturer, then in a booster seat in the vehicle's back seat.
· 8 to 12 years: keep child in a booster seat until he or she is big enough to fit in a seat belt properly; the lap belt must lie snugly across the upper thighs, not the stomach; the shoulder belt should lie snug across the shoulder and chest and not cross the neck or face; your child should still ride in the back seat because it's safer there.
· Certified technicians will inspect and verify your car seat installation (free of charge in most places); click here to find the inspection station nearest you.
· Utilize NHTSA's 5-star ease of use rating system here.

Pregnant women and belt usage
· Many pregnant women rationally but wrongly believe that the lap belt part of the restraint system may damage the fetus in a forward-type collision; consequently, many pregnant women do not wear the belt at all (about 62% of the time), or wear it improperly, such as over the shoulder only or behind the back.
· Medical experts and vehicle safety groups have sponsored studies that conclude that a properly worn shoulder and lap belt clearly protects the fetus and would prevent about 85% of disabling injuries to or death of a fetus in motor vehicle crashes.

Tires and safety
· Tire wear depends on many factors, including driving style, vehicle load, air pressure (under inflation is worse), unbalanced tires, type of terrain, failure to balance and rotate tires regularly, worn shocks or struts, suspension misalignment, climatic conditions including ambient temperature, and damage caused by road hazards.
· With age, tire components dry out, hastened by oxidation, causing the adhesion between the tire components (layers) to wear out, leading to possible tread separation, often with catastrophic results.
· Experts, including some vehicle manufacturers, say that a tire should not be kept in service and may become dangerous after six years.
· Replacing and mounting tires:
§ Replace all four tires at the same time if possible.
§ When replacing only two tires, always have the new tires mounted on the rear axle, regardless of which wheels are the drive wheels.
§ If only one tire is replaced, pair it with the tire with the best tread and mount them on the rear axle.
§ Surprisingly, some tire dealers, especially smaller ones, are not aware of these safe mounting practices, so you must insist that they mount the tires as above.

What to do if you are in a car crash
· Remain at the scene and seek medical help as required.
· Notify police authorities.
· Exchange insurance and identifying information with other driver(s).
· Notify your insurance company as required by your policy.
· Preserve evidence by:
§ Taking photos of vehicles and accident scene;
§ Storing and maintaining your vehicle in its post-accident condition (further damage, loss of parts, tampering, etc. may adversely affect any future lawsuit);
§ If you are injured, seeking an experienced, qualified attorney's advice to protect your legal rights (there are variable state time limits for filing a lawsuit, so you should act promptly).

Do you have brain injury?
· Brain injuries may be "invisible" and the injured person may not immediately be aware of the injury.
· Brain injury can result even from low-impact crashes.
· Brain injury symptoms may be mild, such as fatigue, headache, poor attention or concentration, loss of balance, mood changes and the like.
· Severe symptoms may include any of the above and cognitive deficits, speech and language problems; sensory, perceptual, hearing, vision, smell and taste problems; seizures, paralysis, spasticity, personality changes and many others.
· If you or those around you notice any of the above symptoms following a car collision, tell your doctors.

Dealing with insurance companies
· You have an obligation to cooperate with your own insurance company, though they may eventually become your adversary.
· Keep in mind that your insurance company is in business to make money; every dollar paid out in claims reduces their bottom line.
· Contact your insurance company as soon as you get home from the accident. Most policies require a signed proof of loss within a certain time limit.
· Don't give a recorded or written statement to your insurance company until you review your policy and understand your coverage. If you have doubts, contact an attorney.
· Don't withhold information when you give your statement to your insurer. It's likely they will conduct their own investigation, and if it's found that you lied or left out important details it could affect the coverage you are entitled to or even invalidate your policy.
· Whenever you speak with your insurance company, take detailed notes, like:
· Name of person you spoke with.
· Their job title or position at the insurance company.
· Accident details you provided.
· What they said to you.

Keeping track of expenses and lost income related to your claim
· Missed time from work.
· Property damage to vehicle or contents
· Cost of alternative transportation
· Medical Bills
· Mileage to doctor and therapy appointments
· Services performed by family members or others on your behalf.

Contacting an Attorney
While it is possible to negotiate and settle your personal injury claim without involving an attorney, it is dangerous to do so. Remember that insurance companies are trying to offer you the very least amount of compensation they can get away with. Even if you are facing financial difficulties resulting from your car accident and feel pressured to accept a premature, inadequate settlement, do not sign any releases or waivers without first talking to an experience personal injury attorney.

Under a rule proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, vehicles with keyless ignition systems would either automatically put the autos in park or notify drivers when the vehicle has been left unattended. The proposed rule comes in the wake of the injuries and deaths that have arisen when people have exited their autos without realizing they've forgotten to shut off the engine.

Keyless ignition systems usually come with a device, such as a fob, that when in the vehicle can allow the driver to start the auto with the mere turn of the switch or the push of a button. However, this has led to some serious incidents and injuries. For example, one of the complaints the NHTSA has received is from a driver claiming to have been dragged through a parking lot after the car started rolling off on its own. The vehicle stopped on the driver's foot. There have also been reported incidents of people dying from carbon monoxide poisoning because a vehicle was left running in an attached garage. Toyota has already been sued for auto products liability by plaintiffs blaming the vehicle's keyless ignition feature for personal injury or wrongful death.

One woman, Mary Rivera, now suffers from permanent brain damage because she left her Lexus's engine running in the attached garage of her residence on February 27, 2009. Her partner Ernest Codelia, who was with her, died from his carbon monoxide poisoning-related injuries.

In their New York auto products liability lawsuit, Codelia's family blamed the Lexus's keyless ignition system for not coming with a shutdown switch that would automatically have activated when the vehicle was left unoccupied and/or unmoving with the engine still running for an extended period of time. They also contended that the keyless ignition system is in violation of federal safety standards because the vehicle can keep running even if the key fob is in someone's pocket, making the risk of accidentally leaving the vehicle on while unattended even higher.

Our auto products liability lawyers represent clients injured because of vehicle defects and malfunctions. Even if a vehicle part or feature works as intended, if it proves to be too dangerous, this can be grounds for an auto defect lawsuit.

NHTSA is proposing standardizing keyless ignition systems that would automatically shut off the vehicles after the power button is held for just half a second. The federal safety agency is also calling for a loud warning sound to go off if a motorist exits the vehicle without placing it in park mode. The sound would continue until the driver makes the necessary adjustment. If the driver were to get out with the key fob without shutting down the car, a warning sound would go off.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention; Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0174, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, March 5, 2012

Proposed Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571, Law.Cornell.Edu

Toyota sued in carbon monoxide tragedy that killed 79-year-old lawyer, New York Daily News, November 10, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Toyota Auto Products Liability Lawsuit Claims Keyless Lexus Caused Carbon Monoxide Death and Brain Injury, Product Liability Law Blog, November 16, 2010

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

New York Tire Blowout: 2 Killed in Tour Bus Crash Carrying Indian Tourists, Product Liability Law Blog, July 27, 2011

Just when Toyota had almost stopped making headlines after a few years of nonstop exposure due to claims blaming sudden unintended acceleration accidents involving its vehicles for injuries and deaths and the recalls of millions of vehicles, the automaker recently found itself among the day's top stories once again. CNN recently revealed that it had seen a "confidential" document from 2006 noting that Toyota engineers noticed an electronic software issue in one of its test vehicles that caused the vehicle to accelerate suddenly and unintentionally. Toyota, which is defending itself in scores of auto products liability lawsuits and wrongful death claims, denied that the document is evidence of such a safety issue.

Also, last week, the automaker announced another recall. The vehicles included this time are about 682,000 Venza, Camry, and Tacoma vehicles There are a number of Venza ('09 - '11 models) and Camry ('09 models) vehicles that may have gotten silicon grease into the stop-lamp switch while they were at the factory. Toyota says this could lead to greater electrical resistance that may activate warning lights on the engine, stop the transmission from being able to shift out of park, prevent the engine from starting, or keep the stop lights from working. A number of Tacoma trucks ('05 - early '09 models) are part of the recall because unless their steering wheel spiral cable assembly is replaced, an airbag could become disabled if the cable rubs against the retainer.

Also announcing a big recall is Chrysler. Nearly 210,000 Jeep Liberty SUV's ('04-05 models) are involved over concerns that rust might cause a rear suspension part to break. The car manufacturer knows of 83 reports of such failures but is not aware of any related car crashes at this time. This recall, however, is not national and it is taking place in just 20 states. (According to the New York Times, consumer advocates typically are not fans of what is known as a regional recall because the owners of autos are known to move to another region, which means the driver of a vehicle involved might not know about the recall or able to avail of a free safety repair.)

One other automaker that may have to announce its own recall is Ford Motor Corp. According to the NHTSA, the traffic safety agency has received 14 complaints from motorists who claim they have a hard time getting their auto to stop when after the throttles got stuck in the open position the vehicle accelerated.

Investigators are examining the cruise control cables that allegedly came off in some Ford Tauruses ('05 and '06 models). Some of the drivers have said that in order to get the autos to stop, they not only had to step on the breaks but also the vehicle's gear had to be shifted into neutral or stop. (In certain incidents, after the vehicle was placed in neutral or stop its engine revved to up to 4,000 revolutions a minute. Some 360, 000 Ford vehicles may be involved. NHTSA says it will decide whether a recall is necessary after it finishes its probe.

Chrysler Recalls 210,000 Jeep Liberty S.U.V.'s for Rust-Prone Suspension, The New York Times, March 7, 2012

Toyota Recall: How A Hiccup Became A Big Headache, Forbes, March 8, 2012

U.S. investigates Ford Tauruses for stuck throttles, CNN, March 12, 2012

More Blog Posts:
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

Honda, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Nissan and Toyota Announce Auto Recalls, Product Liability Law Blog, August 8, 2011

Continue reading "Toyota and Chrysler Announce Large Auto Recalls" »

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 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 " »

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