Product Liability Law Blog

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.

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

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

The parents of Jason Alan Foster have filed a Massachusetts SUV rollover lawsuit Mitsubishi Motors North America seeking damages for his wrongful death. Foster, 17, died from injuries he sustained in a 2009 SUV rollover crash. He was a passenger in the sport utility vehicle when the driver, a teen motorist, lost control of the vehicle and rolled over on a curve Michelle and Charles Foster say that the 2000 Mitsubishi Montero's design is "unreasonably dangerous." They are asking for $7 million.

In their Massachusetts SUV lawsuit, the Fosters claim that the vehicle had several design defects, including poor maneuverability, a design that doesn't protect occupants during rollovers, a high gravity center, and a tendency to oversteer. They contend that the automaker failed to warn about the flaws, defects, and/or the faulty design of the vehicle.

According to the Fosters' auto defects attorney, Mitsubishi knew about these vehicle defects that they are complaining about yet failed to act to remedy them. The couple is also seeking damages for emotional distress, negligence, and violation of state's consumer protection laws. Mitsubishi is denying the Fosters' allegations.

The Fosters are not the first to file an auto products liability complaint claiming that the SUV is a rollover risk. The failure to include electronic stability control on all models, the likelihood that the vehicle roof and pillars could collapse, and faulty seat belts are among the allegations that others have made. Some of the cases have resulted in juries awarding damages of up to $11 million.

SUV Rollovers
It is no longer news that SUVs are at greater risk of rolling over than passenger cars. Broken bones, internal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, crush injuries, head injuries, and neck injuries, are just some of the injuries that can be sustained in an SUV rollover. Vehicle ejection during a rollover crash is also not uncommon. Auto manufacturers know this and it is their job to make sure that their sport utility vehicles are designed to be as safe as possible so that the chances of an SUV rollover are minimized.

Parents file lawsuit over teens' death, Salem News, March 29, 2011

Related Web Resources:
aferCar.gov

Before you buy an SUV, PBS

More Blog Posts:
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, February 4, 2011

Toyota Stops Selling Lexus GX 460 SUV After Consumer Reports Tells Shoppers 'Don't Buy' and Warns of Rollover Risk, Product Liability Law Blog, April 13, 2010

Stepping back from its previous ruling in Geier v. American Honda Motor Company that the automaker could not be sued for car products liability because, at the time, federal safety regulations considered the installation of air bags optional, the US Supreme Court, in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, is now saying that this type of auto defect lawsuit—involving the car part chosen by the manufacturer—can proceed.

The family of Thanh Williamson claims that Mazda's failure to install a lap-and-shoulder belt in the rear middle seat of the 1993 minivan caused her wrongful death. Williams was wearing only a lap belt when she died in a 2002 car crash. While Mazda says that it should be immune from their seat belt defect lawsuit because federal safety regulations allowed it to choose which type of seat belt to install in certain rear seats, the US Supreme Court says that unlike in the Geier case, when regulators were still uncertain about the effectiveness of air bags, in the Williamson case, even though automakers had been given the option of which seat belt to install, there was no doubt even back then that a lap-and-shoulder belt was safer for passengers than a lap belt.

To give you a sense of how the high court's ruling is paving the way for other auto products liability complaints that previously may not have stood a chance, this week, it ruled that Priester v. Ford Motor Co. should also get another day in court. The South Carolina Supreme Court had dismissed the car window defect case also on the grounds that federal regulations preempt the lawsuit.

James Lloyd's mom contends that her son may not have been fatally thrown from the vehicle of the 1997 F-150 pickup truck he was riding in during the 2002 rollover crash if only Ford had used laminated side windows rather than tempered glass ones. Federal safety regulations allowed for either option.

Suit Against Ford to Be Reconsidered, The Wall Street Journal, February 28, 2011

Supreme Court: Mazda Can Be Sued for Lack of Backseat Belts in Vans, ABC News, February 23, 2011

Mazda Seatbelt Lawsuit Prompts U.S. Supreme Court Appeal for Claims Shield, Bloomberg, November 1, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, US Supreme Court (PDF)

Geier v. American Honda Motor Company, US Supreme Court, Cornell.edu

More Blog Posts:
Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 13, 2011

Ford SUV Rollover Lawsuit: Jury Awards Baseball Player's Family $131 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, September 27, 2010

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

Continue reading "Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States" »

The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a new rule aimed at lowering the number of deaths involving passengers ejected from vehicles during rollover accidents. Per the rule, by the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, auto manufacturers have to come up with a countermeasure for light passenger vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds that keeps the equivalent from unbelted adults from moving over 4 inches past the side window opening during a traffic crash.

The new standard will start to go into effect in 2013. Beginning model year 2018, all new cars will have to have this protection.

According to NHTSA Administrator David Strickland, rollover accidents are the deadliest type of auto crash. He says the government believes that the new standard will prevent about 476 serious injuries and 373 deaths annually.

Occupant Ejection
A vehicle occupant's chances of dying go up when he/she is partially or completely thrown from an auto during a collision. Chances of the passenger sustaining a serious traumatic brain injury also go up, because often a passenger will end up striking his/her head against the pavement. Occupation ejection is more likely in a rollover crash.

Auto manufacturers are familiar with the type of safety issues that can increase the chances of occupant ejection and it is their job to make sure these problems are addressed so that the chance of a person ending up falling out of a vehicle—usually through one of the windows—is dramatically decreased.

Our SUV rollover crash lawyers know how to prove liability in a car accident involving occupant ejection. A few common causes of occupant ejection:

• Seat belt malfunctions
• Door latch defects
• Roof crush
• Poor quality side window glass

href="http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/U.S.+Department+of+Transportation+Issues+New+Ejection+Mitigation+Rule" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Transportation Issues New Ejection Mitigation Rule, NHTSA, January 13, 2011

Ejection Mitigation, NHTSA (PDF)

Related Web Resources:
Rollover, PBS

Continue reading "US DOT Issues Rule to Reduce Vehicle Ejections During Rollover Accidents" »

According to The Detroit News, manufacturers called back over 19 million vehicles in 600 recall campaigns in 2010—the busiest year for post-production fixes since 2004 when 600 campaigns recalled 30.8 million autos. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which will release its final numbers for the year next month, reported that as of October 25 it had recorded 417 recalls affecting 14.8 million autos. Both the NHTSA and the News placed Toyota at the top of their list of manufacturers with the most recalls. NHTSA's preliminary list reported Toyota having 14 recall campaigns affecting approximately 5.9 million autos, while the News reported nine campaigns involving 4.8 million cars.

The urgency for autos with defects to be recalled immediately kicked into gear in August 2009 when a Toyota sudden acceleration accident involving a Lexus vehicle killed off-duty California Highway Patrol officer Mark Saylor, his wife, daughter, and brother-in-law. The vehicle they were in accelerated out of control when the gas pedal got stuck in the floor mat.

Second on the News' list was General Motors with 21 recall campaigns affecting about 4 million vehicles. Just recently, GM's Cadillac division recalled about 95,927 CTS sports sedans over a problem with its sensing system that could impact airbag deployment. '05, '06, and '07 models are affected. The automaker also recalled over 97,000 Chevrolet Equinoxes, Cadillac SRX's, and GMC Terrain autos, all '11 models, because the safety buckle anchor on the driver and frontal passenger seats may break during a traffic crash. In a smaller recall, GM recalled 1,262 SUV's and trucks, also '11 models, because the vehicles' rear axle cross pins were not made correctly. Vehicles impacted include the Chevrolet Silverado 1500, the Cadillac Escalade, GMC Sierra 1500, and Chevrolet Avalanche 1500.

Auto manufacturers are now under closer scrutiny and must report auto defects within five days of discovering. Our auto products liability law firm hopes that the push to immediately repair safety issues will save lives and prevent serious injuries.

2010 Likely Busiest Year for Auto Recalls in Seven Years, Daily Finance, December 29, 2010

Cadillac Recall: More Safety Gear Can Mean More Recalls, The Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2010

Auto recalls spike in 2010, The Detroit News, December 29, 2010

GM Recall: Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Equinox And GMC Terrain Models Affected, Star Global Tribune, December 28, 2010

GM recalls 2011 Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC trucks over axle risks, Torque News, December 28, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Get recall alert notices, Safercar.gov

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Auto Recalls, Product Liability Law Blog

Continue reading "More than 19 Million Autos Recalled in 2010 in About 600 Campaigns" »

A jury has awarded the family of Brian Cole $131 million in their SUV rollover lawsuit against Ford for his wrongful death. Cole, a 22-year-old top prospect for the New York Mets, died on March 31, 2001 after he was thrown from his 2001 Ford Explorer on Interstate 10 close to Florida Highway 286. The punitive damages portion of the case was settled for an undisclosed amount. The jury also awarded $1.5 million to Ryan Cole, Cole's cousin who was injured during the single car crash.

This is the third time that Cole's family has sought to obtain auto products liability compensation against Ford. Two other trials had ended in hung juries.

According to the Mississippi sport utility vehicle rollover complaint, Cole's SUV rolled over when he veered the car to avoid striking another auto. Cole's family contends that he died because that particular Explorer model was at risk of rolling over and had a seat belt that was defective.

Ford had argued that Cole was speeding at over 80 mph when he "turned his steering wheel 295 degrees" to lose control of the auto. They also claimed Cole was thrown from the vehicle when it rolled over because he was not using his seat belt. Ford contends that it was denied a fair trial because certain evidence involving the wrongful death case was kept out.

SUV Rollovers
Thousands are injured and killed in rollover crashes each year. Many of these tragic SUV rollover crashes are a result of negligence on an automaker's part. There are many vehicles out there that lack the proper safety features necessary to protect car occupants during a rollover crash. Traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, roof crush-related injuries, and injuries from being thrown from the SUV are not uncommon. In addition to design and safety defects, other auto defects that can cause serious injuries or death to vehicle occupants during an SUV rollover include seat belt defects, airbag defects, seatback failures, poorly structured vehicle rooftops, tire flaws, and window defects.

Brian Cole's family awarded $131 million in lawsuit, NBC Sports, September 2, 2010

$132M awarded in '01 crash, ClarionLedger, September 3, 2010

Lawyer: Ford, family settle in player crash death, Google/AP, September 2, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Rollover, Frontline, PBS

Rollover, Safercar.gov

Toyota says it will recall about 9,400 2010 Lexus GX 460. The recall follows the recent finding by Consumer Reports that the vehicle poses a rollover risk.

As our automotive products liability lawyers reported in our Product Liability Law Blog last week, the safety hazard came to public attention when the popular magazine, after testing the vehicle, told consumers "Don't Buy" the 2010 Lexus GX 460. Toyota, after coming under fire in the past for its slow response when dealing with possible safety hazards, reacted swiftly, temporarily suspending the sale and manufacture of the Lexus GX 460 and conducting its own tests to see if it could replicate Consumer Reports' findings. It did.

Now, the automaker is recalling the vehicles to fix a problem with the SUV's Vehicle Stability Control system that is increasing the chances of loss of control and/or rollover. Toyota intends to update the VSC system.

Toyota's latest recall comes on the heels of its recall last week of approximately 600,000 Toyota Sienna minivans (1998 – 2010 models). The automaker is concerned that corrosion might affect the spare tire carrier cable—especially in localities where there is high salt usage during cold weather—and that this could lead to the spare tire coming off the vehicle and falling onto the road, posing a safety hazard to other motorists.

Toyota is attempting to remedy its tarnished reputation in the wake of its recent recalls of over 8 million vehicles because of sudden acceleration issues, sticky gas pedals, brake problem, and ill-fitting floor mats. Also today, the automaker agreed to pay a $16.4 million fine for failing to notify US authorities immediately about the accelerator pedal defect.

Toyota recalled 2.3 million autos because of the sticky gas pedal defect in January. However, the US government says that the car manufacturer knew about the sticky gas pedal defect as early as late September. Under US law, car manufacturers are supposed report safety defects that they discover within five business days.

Meantime, dozens of plaintiffs have come forward suing Toyota for auto products liability and wrongful death.

AP Source: Toyota to recall 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUVs, Associated Press/Google, April 19, 2010

Toyota announces voluntary recall on 2010 Lexus GX 460 to update vehicle stability control software, Lexus.com, April 19, 2010 (PDF)

Recall: 600,000 Toyota Sienna minivans, Chicago Tribune, April 19, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Toyota News Releases, Toyota.com

Additional Information on Toyota Recalls and Investigations, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Don't Buy: Safety Risk--2010 Lexus GX 460, Consumer Reports, April 13, 2010

Continue reading "SUV Rollover Risk Prompts Toyota to Recall 2010 Lexus GX 460 SUVs" »

Toyota has temporarily stopped selling its Lexus GX 460 SUV following the Consumer Reports' warning to buyers that they should stay away from the sport utility vehicle. The magazine, known for independently testing motor vehicles and its recommendations regarding what people should buy, issued a rare "Don't Buy" warning and said that not only did the SUV fail to pass a key emergency-handling test, but it is a rollover risk that could result in "serious injury or death."

The lack of endorsement is another blow to Toyota Motor Corp. The car manufacturer is trying to win back consumers' confidence in the wake of its recalls of millions of motor vehicles because of gas pedal defects, ill-fitting floor mats, acceleration problems, and brake issues. Earlier, the automaker said it was "mystified" by the magazine's test findings and would conduct the same test performed by Consumer Reports to figure out if further action needs to be taken. The car manufacturer says the Lexus GX either satisfies or exceeds the US government's testing requirements.

According to Consumer Reports' testing team, when the SUV was "pushed to its limits" while on the magazine's test track, the back of the vehicle "slid out" until it was "almost sideways" before the electronic stability control system finally kicked into gear. All four test drivers had the same problem when driving the Lexus GX.

Consumer Report says that this "lift-off oversteer" problem could result in a rollover crash. If the driver were to quickly take his/her foot off the gas pedal while making a turn that is "too tight for the vehicle's speed," the rear of the SUV could "slide around far enough... the wheel could strike a curb or slide off the pavement."

The magazine says that none of the other SUVs it tested in recent years "slid out as far" as this Lexus and that that a second GX 460 it tested exhibited the same problems. David Champion, the Consumer Reports auto test division's senior director, says that this is the first time the magazine has seen this problem in an SUV that has ESC. Consumer Reports has notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of its worries.

About 5,000 GX 460's have been sold since it became available earlier this year. No injuries or deaths have been linked to this issue.

SUV Rollover Accidents
Every year, thousands of people are killed in rollover accidents, many of them in SUV's. Head injuries, spinal cord injuries, paralysis, and traumatic brain injuries are just some of the catastrophic injuries that can occur.

Unfortunately, there are many SUV's that are not designed well enough to prevent a rollover crash from happening or protect passengers in the event that the vehicle does overturn. A vehicle design defect can be grounds for an auto products liability complaint.

Toyota halts sales of Lexus SUV as Consumer Reports deems it rare ‘safety risk', Washington Post, April 14, 2010

Consumer Reports Says Lexus GX 460 Is Unsafe, New York Times, April 13, 2010

Toyota temporarily halts sale of Lexus GX 460 SUV, Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Consumer Reports

Toyota Motor Corporation

Continue reading "Toyota Stops Selling Lexus GX 460 SUV After Consumer Reports Tells Shoppers 'Don't Buy' and Warns of Rollover Risk" »

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that car manufacturers recalled 16.4 million vehicles last year. While there were less recall campaigns overall—492 recall campaigns in 2009 compared to 684 campaigns in 2008, automakers recalled 6 million more autos last year.

Toyota led the car manufacturer list with most vehicles recalled. The car manufacturer's reputation for passenger safety took a beating after four people were killed when its floor mat on the driver's side jammed a 2009 Lexus ES 350's gas pedal, causing the vehicle to accelerate to over 100 mph before crashing. Following the fatal car wreck, the Toyota announced a recall involving 4.26 million vehicles—its largest recall ever—to fix acceleration problems. In total, Toyota announced 9 campaigns and recalled 4.87 million autos last year.

Among the other automakers that recalled vehicles in 2009:

• Ford Motor Co.: 8 campaigns that recalled 4.5 million vehicles.
• General Motors Co.: 16 campaigns and 2.2 million autos recalled.
• Honda Motor Co.: 4 campaigns and 454,000 motor vehicles. Honda was the only auto manufacturer to see a drop in the number of vehicles it recalled in 2009 compared to the year before. The car manufacturer recalled 797,000 autos in 2008.
• Chrysler Group LLC: 15 campaigns and 59,000 vehicles.
• Nissan Motor Co.'s Kia Unit: 8 campaigns and 1.3 million autos.
• Volkswagen AG: 8 campaigns and 100,000 recalled autos.

While recalling a vehicle to fix a particular defect is a positive step toward preventing injuries and deaths, car manufacturers should not be designing, making, and selling vehicles that have any type of vehicle defect to begin with. Auto defects are not minor glitches that can be easily fixed. There are lives at stake whenever someone gets in a car that can potentially malfunction because a specific part was defective or poorly manufactured.

Do NOT be intimidated by a giant car manufacturer when it comes to pursuing an auto products liability claim for personal injury or death. Our auto products liability lawyers represents clients who were seriously injured or lost loved ones in car accidents because of structural defects, faulty engines, a seat back defects, a poorly designed seat belts, weak vehicle roofs, defective tires, faulty airbags, or other flawed vehicle parts.

Auto recalls surge in '09, NHTSA says, Detroit News, January 12, 2010

Recalls, NHTSA

Related Web Resources:
Auto Recalls, Justia
Consumer Reports

As a follow-up to my September 4, 2009 blog entitled, "Toyota Rollover Lawsuits: Automaker's Former Attorney Accuses Auto Manufacturer of Concealing Evidence in Over 300 Auto Products Liability Cases," U.S. District Judge George H. King, the judge presently assigned to the case, refused to grant Toyota's request to seal the lawsuit in the face of Toyota allegaions that Toyota will suffer "further harm" if the complaint is not sealed. Just four days after the suit was filed, District Judge Christina A. Snyder denied a similar request by Toyota. In the latest denial, Judge King said "plaintiff's complaint is now irreversibly in the public domain, as it is readily available on the Anternet. Therefore, sealing the complaint would be futile at this point."

It appears, therefore, that the very specific and damning accusations of Toyota's record withholding and possible obstruction of justice in rollover cases will remain available for the world, and especially for consumers and victims, to see. Read the entire racketeering complaint against Toyota here.

The outcome of more than 300 auto products liability lawsuits are now being questioned, following allegations by a former senior counsel for Toyota Motor Sales Corp. that the company made him withhold key evidence from plaintiffs who had sought recovery for personal injury or wrongful death. Dimitrios P. Biller has filed a federal racketeering lawsuit alleging that because he complained to the company about its alleged misconduct he was forced to resign.

While working for Toyota between 2003 and 2007, Biller defended Toyota against plaintiffs whose rollover lawsuits pinpointed that the vehicles' weak and unstable roofs as a cause of the injuries and deaths. His complaint also accuses Toyota of failing to turn over electronically stored data to the auto products liability lawyers of the plaintiffs.

Biller claims that the company withheld test information by allowing an engineering subsidiary to destroy key documents in hundreds of rollover accident cases where roof crush issues were a factor. He says that even today there are Toyota motor vehicles that fail to meet the automaker's safety goals.

Our auto products liability lawyers at Gilbert & Ollanik, PC have settled dozens of Toyota rollover accident cases. Biller's allegations if they are true, are indeed very serious.

Already, a class action lawsuit has been filed accusing Toyota of illegally concealing evidence in rollover accident cases on behalf of plaintiffs who either settled or lost their auto products liability cases because certain data wasn't made available to them. Other auto products liability law firms are now saying that they may have to consider whether their Toyota rollover lawsuits that have been resolved need to be reopened.

Toyota is calling Biller's accusations "inaccurate and misleading." The company is attempting have his complaint sealed because of "privileged and confidential" data that Biller should not be revealing. Biller's lawsuit names Toyota Motor Sales, Toyota Motor Corp. of Japan, and five ex- and current lawyers and executives employed by Toyota Motor Sales as the defendants.

Victims and family members wishing to seek recovery for personal injury and wrongful death continue to file Toyota rollover lawsuits .

Rollover lawsuits could haunt Toyota, USA Today, September 2, 2009

Lawsuit: Toyota Buried Accident Evidence, CBS News, August 31, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Read the Lawsuit (PDF)

Toyota 4Runner SUV Rollover Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Crash, About Lawsuits, August 10, 2009

Continue reading "Toyota Rollover Lawsuits: Automaker's Former Attorney Accuses Auto Manufacturer of Concealing Evidence in Over 300 Auto Products Liability Cases" »

The widower and children of a woman who died in an SUV rollover accident last May are suing Toyota Corporation and Courtesy Toyota of Brandon for wrongful death. Elisa Obediente, 56, died after losing control of her vehicle on Interstate 75 in Florida. According to police, she over-corrected her steering to avoid hitting another vehicle when making a lane change and her 1998 Toyota 4Runner rolled over multiple times.

The Florida auto products liability lawsuit contends that the defendants neglected to properly protect Obediente during the rollover crash. The plaintiffs are claiming that the SUV had inherent defects that could have been easily remedied, including roof rails, windshield headers, and pillars that might have prevented the severe roof crushthat occurred if they were made stronger. Because the roof did collapse inward, Obediente was partially ejected from the vehicle.

The plaintiffs' Florida auto products liability lawyer maintains that Toyota could have easily installed Electronic Stability Control technology and that ESC could have helped the 56-year-old mother and wife to regain control of the car after over-steering. They also say other improvements could have been made at a low cost that might have prevented Obediente's death.

Also, the Federal Registry had reportedly completed a study ranking the 4Runner as the second car most likely in its class to be involved in a rollover crash, Yet, according to the plaintiffs, Toyota failed to reveal the rollover risks and even suggested that customers purchase a tire and wheel package that actually could increase the chances of a 4Runner rolling over. They also say that the defendants knew as far back as the late 1960's that these SUV's were susceptible to roof crushes but they misled the public into believing that they had strengthened their vehicles to withstand such accidents.

The Florida wrongful death lawsuit also is accusing the defendants of falsifying test results to come up with inaccurate rollover crush force minimums to make it appear as if certain auto parts had been strengthened against higher roof crush forces.

The plaintiffs are seeking wrongful death compensation, as well as compensation for loss of care, financial support, companionship, love, moral support, and comfort.

Products Liability
Auto products liability cases can be brought when a design defect, manufacturing defect, or marketing defect contributed to a car crash that resulted in personal injury or wrongful death.

Woman dies after SUV rolls over on I-75, TBO.com, May 24, 2009

Toyota 4Runner SUV Rollover Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Crash, About Lawsuits, August 10, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Toyota 4Runner Problems, AutoMotix.net

SUV Rollovers, BrainandSpinalCord.org

In San Francisco, California, a federal jury awarded a Bay Area musician $18 million for his auto products liability lawsuit against automaker Ford. 38-year-old resident Dax Pierson is now a quadriplegic because of injuries he sustained in a 2005 15-passenger van rollover accident involving a Ford vehicle.

According to Pierson's California personal injury complaint, he sustained multiple spinal fractures when the E-350 van he was riding on Interstate 80 in Iowa rolled over 2 ¬Ω times after striking black ice. Pierson, who was seated in the back passenger seat, struck his head on the roof after the seat became detached from the floor. He was using a seat belt. No one else sustained serious injuries during the crash.

During the auto products liability trial, Ford said that the van was not defective and fulfilled all industry requirements. Representatives for the car maker instead blamed the manager of Pierson's band, Patrick Scott, for driving too fast. The jury, however, disagreed with Ford and awarded Pierson $6 million for pain and suffering and $12.3 million for medical costs.

Pierson founded the band Subtle and was its vocalist, keyboard player, and lead composer and arranger. Now, he uses special equipment that pushes buttons on a computer keyboard to compose and arrange his music. He also needs an attendant with him 24-hours a day.

In another California auto products liability lawsuit, a Los Angeles judge told Jaguar Land Rover that it must pay a now paralyzed man $21.1 million because the Land Rover Discovery SUV he was riding rolled over a number of times after it was struck by a teen driver who was driving at 80mph on the 118 freeway in 2003.

Sukhsagar Pannu, 53, sustained a catastrophic spinal cord injury from the SUV rollover accident. The former field hockey player can no longer utilize his legs and arms and he requires 24-hour care.

The judge says that the vehicle's high gravity center made it prone to rollover accidents and the SUV's roof collapsed too easily. Meantime, Jaguar Land Rover says it plans to appeal the verdict. Their lawyer says that the 16-year-old driver is the one that is at fault for causing Pannu's catastrophic SUV rollover accident.

Paralyzed Oakland musician sues Ford, wins, SF Gate, May 29, 2009
Land Rover maker ordered to pay $21.1 million in rollover case, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Rollover: The Hidden History of the SUV, PBS.org

15-Passenger Van Safety, NHTSA