Product Liability Law Blog

It’s only Wednesday, and already three major auto manufacturers have announced recalls of their vehicles due to possible vehicle defects. Our auto products liability lawyers will continue to monitor these problems, and we ask that you contact us immediately for a free consultation if you believe that you or someone you love sustained injuries related to these issues.

On Monday, General Motors announced that it is recalling 1.3 million Pontiac and Chevrolet compact cars in the United States, Mexico, and Canada because the vehicles’ power steering motors might fail. Vehicles involved in the GM recall include:

• Chevrolet Cobalts, 2005 – 2010 models
• Pontiac Pursuit, 2005 and 2006 models
• Pontiac G5s, 2007 – 2010 models
• Pontiac G4’s, 2005 and 2006 models

General Motors says that although the problem is not making the vehicles less safe to drive, they can be harder to steer when the car is moving at speeds lower than 15 mph. Because the condition doesn’t usually develop until after the vehicle has been driven for 20,000 to 30,000 miles, older models will be repaired first.

On Tuesday, Nissan announced the global recall of 540,000 sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks so that inaccurate fuel gauges and faulty brake pedal pins can be repaired. The recall over the brake pedal pins comes following three reports that braking ability was impended when these devices became partially disengaged. The 179,000 vehicles affected in the US include (2008 – 2010 models):

• Quest
• Titan
• Infiniti
• Armada

The automaker is recalling another 419,000 Nissan vehicles over an unrelated fuel-gauge problem that can result in inaccurate fuel readings. For example, the gas tank may be empty even though the gauge shows that the tank still contains gas. Autos affected include the (2005 – 2008 models):

• Titan
• Infiniti QX53
• Armada

Also recalled by Nissan (these vehicles were made between Jan- March 2006 and October 2007 – January 2008):

• Frontiers
• Xterras
• Pathfinders

Last, but not least, today Mazda announced that it is recalling 12,300 CX-9 crossover SUV’s because of the possibility that their electronically heated seats might overheat. This defect may damage the seat surface, drain the car battery, or cause a fire.

This Mazda recall really burns my ..., CNN, March 3, 2010

Nissan recall: Steps to take if your car is on the list, The Christian Science Monitor, March 3, 2010

GM Recalls 1.3 Million Cars: What's Behind All These Vehicle Recalls?, Daily Finance, March 2, 2010

GM to recall 1.3 million compacts for steering problem, Washington Post, March 1, 2010

Related Web Resources:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Recalls.gov

Continue reading "As General Motors Recalls 1.3 Million Vehicles, Nissan Recalls 540,000 Pickup Trucks and Minivans and Mazda Recalls 12,300 SUVs" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Air Bags , Auto Recalls , Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it has received over 100 complaints involving brake problems related to the 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid. Brake-related complaints have also been filed in Japan.

The Prius is the world’s bestselling gas-electric hybrid, with about 1.6 million sold around the world. According to Japan’s Kyodo new agency, the brakes may temporarily stop working when the vehicle is on slippery or bumpy roads.

In Japan last July, two people were injured when a Prius drove head-on into another vehicle at an intersection. The driver of the Prius said that the car’s brakes were not working. One 2010 Prius owner in the US reported that over a 6-month period, there were 10 instances when the vehicle would accelerate forward for a second as the driver attempted to activate the brakes over a bump or pothole in the road.

Toyota Recalls
This latest news is doing nothing to rehabilitate Toyota’s image as an automaker of safe, reliable cars. In the last two weeks, Toyota has recalled millions of vehicles in the US, Europe, and China over what the auto manufacturer is calling two unrelated accelerator defects. Our auto products liability law firm has been closely following these developments, and you can view our previews posts by clicking on the links below.

Earlier today, US Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urged owners the Toyota vehicles that were recalled over a sticking accelerator pad to stop driving the cars and get them fixed immediately. However, LaHood later retracted what he is now calling a “misstatement’ and says that vehicle owners can still drive their cars unless there are signs of problems with the gas pedal. Or, he said, “if you are in doubt, take it to the dealership today." On Monday, Toyota announced that it has figured out how to fix the accelerator problem and is shipping new parts to its dealers.

Meantime, federal regulators are also trying to determine whether vehicle electronics are causing the Toyotas to accelerate without warning. USA Today reports that electromagnetic interference may be coming from numerous sources, such cell phones and radar. The Los Angeles Times says that Toyota acceleration-related complaints increased dramatically when electronic throttles were introduced.

Toyota hit by more than 100 Prius brake complaints, The Washington Times, February 3, 2010

Toyota recall: DOT Secretary Ray LaHood pulls back from telling owners not to drive their cars, USA Today, February 3, 2010

Toyota Recalls Another 1.1 Million Autos Over Floor Mat – Gas Pedal Defect, Product Liability Law Blog, January 29, 2010

Gas Pedal Defect Prompts Toyota Recall of Another 2.3 Million Vehicles in US, Product Liability Law Blog, January 25, 2010

Related Web Resources:
3rd Generation Toyota Prius Hybrid, Toyota

Toyota Recall List

Secretary LaHood Statement on Toyota Recalls, US Department of Transportation, February 3, 2010

Continue reading "Toyota Prius is at Center of More than 100 Brake Complaints " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Brake Defects , Floor Mats , Gas Pedals , Toyota Safety Issues

Bookmark:

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

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 15-Passenger Vans , Air Bags , Automotive Product Liability , Floor Mats , Roof Crush , Seat Back Defects , Seat Belts , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , Tires , Toyota Safety Issues , WIndows

Bookmark:

Ford Motor Co. and a woman who was paralyzed in a 2005 SUV accident involving a defective rear seat latch have reached a confidential auto products liability settlement. The agreement came just after a civil jury awarded Lynn Wheeler $16,444,761 in compensatory damages against Ford and as jury members were getting ready to impose punitive damages.

Wheeler sustained catastrophic spinal cord injuries during a seatback collapse when a car driven by John C. Stanley struck the 2002 Ford Explorer she was a passenger. Wheeler, who was riding in the middle of the backseat of the SUV in between two of her grandchildren, was propelled forward into the vehicle’s center console and the back of the front seat. Meantime, the back seat collapsed over her after the rear seat latch broke.

Her Georgia auto products liability lawsuit accused Ford of designing a rear seat latch that was defective, disregarding safety test results showing that the center lap seat belt wasn’t safe, and, as a cost cutting measure, waiting to install a shoulder restraint for the SUV’s middle seat. A law passed in 2002, but which didn’t go into effect until 2007, now prevents car manufacturers from making vehicles with lap-only seat belts for the rear middle seat.

Wheeler, who is now a quadriplegic, has to use a ventilator and is a confined to a wheelchair. She has three children, nine grandchildren, and has been married to her husband for over 40 years.

The civil jury also held driver John C. Stanley, who was 19 at the time of the head-on crash, liable for $1,271,640 in damages.

Seat Back Defects
Defective seat backs can prove catastrophic for passengers in the event that the seat collapses during an auto accident. Common seat back injuries include spinal cord injuries, which can occur when the rear seat collapses forward and crushes passengers while pushing them into the back of the front seats, and chest and head injuries, which are more likely to occur when the front seat collapses backwards. Children, including those seated in child safety seats, are especially at risk of sustaining fatal injuries during a car crash where a seatback collapse is involved.

Clayton jury returns $17 million verdict, MyCountryPaper, December 26, 2009

Seat failures and occupant restraints, SafetyForum

Related Web Resources:
Ford Motor Co.

NHTSA

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Catastrophic Injuries , Georgia , Seat Back Defects , Spinal Cord Injuries , States

Bookmark:

In the years since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, thousands of their victims who received shelter in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers have sued the trailer manufacturers for auto products liability because of illnesses they sustained from exposure to high levels of formaldehyde in the mobile homes.

Some 143,000 trailers were used as emergency housing units following the two storms. Later, federal tests on hundreds of FEMA mobile homes in Mississippi and Louisiana determined that the levels of formaldehyde (a carcinogen linked to breathing problems) found in the trailers was about five times greater than what can be found in modern homes.

FEMA trailer lawyers representing clients have accused the trailer manufacturers of using poor methods and materials in an attempt to quickly construct the mobile homes to meet FEMA’s demand for temporary residences on the Gulf Coast following both hurricanes.

One plaintiff, Elisha Dubuclet, says the high levels of formaldehyde that she and her family were exposed to while living in a FEMA trailer aggravated her daughter’s eczema and increased her chances of getting cancer. Fleetwood Enterprises Inc. made the trailer where Dubuclet's family lived. Other FEMA trailer residents have complained of breathing problems, eye, throat, and nose irritation, and nausea.

Trailer residents were not the only ones made ill from exposure to the high levels of formaldehyde. According to a CBS News report, Linda Esparza and Tommy Yager, a mother and son who worked on the construction of some of the FEMA trailers, say they experienced flu like symptoms and fatigue as a result. The two of them built the trailers for Gulf Stream Coach, an RV maker contracted to make 50,000 trailers as quickly as possible. At one point in 2006, Gulf Stream Coach was producing over 100 trailers each day—that's triple the rate of regular production.

In July 2008, officials for Gulf Stream Coach, Forest River, Keystone RV, and Pilgrim International testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They admitted that they knew the FEMA trailers they made for the hurricane victims contained unsafe levels of formaldehyde.

Deal in works to resolve some FEMA trailer claims, AP/Google, December 2, 2009

Manufacturers say they knew of FEMA trailer health risks, Christian Science Monitor, July 11, 2008

Did Trailer Makers Know About Toxic Fumes?, CBS, July 8, 2008

Related Web Resources:
FEMA Moving 35,000 Hurricane Katrina Families Out of Toxic Trailers, Product Liability Law Blog, February 18, 2008

Federal Emergency Management Agency

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

Continue reading "Thousands of FEMA Trailer Claims Filed by Victims of Hurricane Katrina and Rita" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , FEMA Trailers , Toxic Chemicals , Toxic Injuries or Disease , Toxic Tort/Environmental Cases

Bookmark:

Following its recall of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles because the floor mat on the driver side could trap the accelerator pedal and cause it to jam, Toyota has announced that it will remedy the auto defect by replacing the gas pedal with a modified pedal while it develops a permanent replacement pedal for the vehicles.

Toyota says it will shorten the gas pedal by approximately 20 millimeter and in some models the flooring will be changed to prevent the floor mat from interfering with the gas pedal. The auto manufacturer will also provide newly designed driver- and front-passenger all weather floor mats.

As an additional confidence measure, Toyota says a brake override system will be installed in some of the recalled vehicles. This is to ensure that the auto can be stopped in the event that the accelerator and brake pedals are activated at the same time. In the meantime, owners of the recalled vehicles are advised to take out the floor mat on the driver’s side and not replace them with another mat until the fixes have been made.

Toyota’s reputation for making safe cars has taken a beating in the last couple of months. This recall, its largest to date, was announced after four family members died in a California car accident because their Lexus ES 350 accelerated to about 100 mph and the car wouldn’t stop because the floor mat had jammed the gas pedal. The Saylors apparently aren’t the only ones who have experienced acceleration problems with their Toyota vehicle.

Also last week, Toyota announced the recall of 110,000 Tundra trucks (2000-2003 models). The recall in the US only affects pickup trucks in Washington DC and 20 US states where de-icing substances, such as road salts, might cause the truck’s frame to experience “excessive corrosion” that could dislodge the vehicle’s spare tire, creating a hazard for other vehicles, or damage the rear brake lines, which could cause brake failure.

The recall affects Tundras in Wisconsin, West Virginia, Vermont, Rhode Island, Virginia, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Delaware, and Connecticut.

Our auto products liability law firm represents clients throughout the US who were injured in car accidents that were caused by defective auto parts. We’ve gone up against the largest car manufacturers in the world and won products liability and wrongful death recovery for injured parties and their families.

Toyota Announces Fix for Accelerator Pedal Entrapment Problem, NHTSA, November 25, 2009

Toyota recalls 100,000 Tundra trucks, CNN Money, November 24, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Toyota News Releases, Toyota

Toyota Recalls 3.8 Million Vehicles, September 29, 2009

Continue reading "Toyota Says it Will Fix Accelerator Pedal Defect on 3.8 Million Recalled Autos" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Recalls , Automotive Product Liability , Floor Mats , Toyota Safety Issues

Bookmark:

More needs to be done to prove child safety when it comes to seat belts—especially as not all US states require that kids ages 4-8 use booster seats. Unfortunately most seat belts are unable to properly fit over the bodies of many children to ensure maximum protection, which can result in catastrophic seat belt-related injuries, known as seat belt syndrome, during a car accident.

Just last year, one 7-year-old’s life changed forever when she sustained seat belt-related injuries during a catastrophic Minnesota car accident. Brynn Duncan was wearing a seat belt, but she had pulled the shoulder belt over her back so it wouldn’t sit on her face. The lap belt she was using fell over her stomach. When the vehicle Brynn was riding in crashed, she sustained a crushing spinal cord injury, bowel and kidney damage, and a bruised heart.

Doctors had to remove her kidney, appendix, and gallbladder. Brynn suffered from infection and depression and sustained permanent injuries. She now requires the use of her wheelchair.

Seat belt syndrome is not uncommon and while US states that don’t require kids, ages 4-8, to use booster seats should consider whether to revise their laws (which many parents turn to for guidance), there is a lot more that auto manufacturers and seat belt designers can do to make sure that kids and adults are properly protected when wearing seat belts and that these safety devices do not cause serious injury.

Injuries linked to seat belt syndrome include liver injuries, abdominal organ injuries, bowel injuries, chest trauma, blood vessel injuries, sternum injuries, spinal cord injuries, and death. Seat belt injuries that occur because the safety device was designed poorly or because the seat belt malfunctioned can be grounds for the injured party and his or her family to file a defective seat belt lawsuit.

Recently, automaker Ford announced its latest development in seat belt technology: inflatable seat belts. Designed to improve rear-seat passenger protection, especially for kids, the belts contain airbags that are supposed to inflate during certain kinds of auto collisions. Hopefully the new belts can provide the added protection kids and adults need during an auto collision.

Ford Says Inflatable Seat Belt Could Reduce Crash Injuries, Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2009

AAA Minnesota/Iowa & Safe Kids Minnesota Support Enhanced Child Restraint Legislation "The Brynn Duncan Law", Reuters, January 6, 2009

Brynn Duncan’s condition worsens, surgery needed, Daily Journal, September 10, 2008

Related Web Resources:
Seat belt syndrome, Wrong Diagnosis

Child restraint laws, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Continue reading "Seat Belt Syndrome: Child Safety Continues to Take a Back Seat " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Catastrophic Injuries , Defective Seatbelt and Restraint System Cases , Injuries to Children & Minors , Kids in Cars , Minnesota , Motor Vehicle Safety , Seat Belts , Spinal Cord Injuries , States

Bookmark:

Kids and Cars is calling on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require that all motor vehicle manufacturers make sure that the power windows on their vehicles come with an auto-reverse feature that automatically would stop a window from rolling up if there was an object or person in the way. The consumer group's new surveys report some 13.6 million power window injuries over an undefined time period. Over 22 million adults say they’ve either gotten hurt or know someone who was injured because of a power window.

Kids are especially prone to power window injuries. Power windows can create 30-80 pounds of force. It takes just 22 pounds of force to cause serious injury to a child. Kids and Cars says that at least 25 kids have died over the past decade in power window-related accidents.

A common kind of injury accident involving power windows and minors involves the child whose head gets caught in a window that shuts, causing catastrophic choking injuries or traumatic brain injuries. Finger amputation is another kind of power window-related injury.

The NHTSA believes that its new safety mandates regarding power windows are taking care of injury hazards. Just last year, the federal agency started requiring all passenger vehicles to come with recessed power switches, which would decrease the chances that a child might accidentally roll up the window while leaning on a switch. By October of next year, the only way to close a power window will be to pull up on a switch.

The NHTSA says there are about 1,995 power window injuries and 7 deaths a year. Most of the injury victims are minors.

If a particular auto part is becoming a common cause of personal injury, it is up to the auto manufacturer to fix the auto defect so that no more people get hurt or die. Failure to do so can be grounds for an auto products liability lawsuit.

Kids and Cars Suggestions for Preventing Power Window Accidents:
• Make sure the windows’ “lock-out” mechanism is activated so kids can’t play with the windows.
• Make sure passengers have all arms, hands, and fingers inside the vehicle.
• Don’t leave kids alone in the vehicle.
• Buy an auto that comes with the auto-reverse mechanism and/or with switches that have to be pulled up to raise the window so that a person who accidentally hits or leans on the switch won’t cause the power window to automatically roll up.

New Data Refutes NHTSA Findings, Exposes Real Danger of Vehicle Power Windows, Kids and Cars, November 2, 2009

Power Windows Pose Great Risk to Children, Says Consumer Group, New York Times, November 2, 2009

Power Window Safety Recommendations, Kids and Cars

Related Web Resources:
Kids and Cars

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Continue reading "Dangerous Auto Part?: Power Window Can Cause Injuries, Says Consumer Group " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Injuries to Children & Minors

Bookmark:

Over the last 10 years, Ford Motor Co. has issued several recalls over a cruise-control deactivation switch that is considered a potential fire hazard. There is concern that if hydraulic fluid leaks from the switch, the car might overheat even when the ignition is off, which may start a fire. Already, several auto products liability lawsuits have been filed over the defect. Ford, however, is quick to point out that most of the complaints have been demands for compensation over property damage that the fires allegedly caused.

There have, however, been injuries and deaths. One family sued Ford for wrongful death after 74-year-old Darletta Mohlis died when her home burned down after a 1996 Ford truck caught fire in the garage. Another woman sustained second-degree burns and lost her cat and house when their Ford Expedition also caught fire in the garage.

Last week, Ford recalled another 4.5 million vehicles over the same issue, increasing the number of autos affected to more than 14 million. This was also the largest single recall in the automaker’s history.

Vehicles included in this latest recall:

• F53 Motorhomes (1994 model)
• Ford Econoline vans (1992 – 2003 models)
• Ford Rangers (1995-1997, 2001- 2003 models)
• Ford Excursion diesel vehicles (2000-2003 models)
• Ford Windstars (1995 – 2003 models)
• Ford Explorers and Mountaineers (1995 – 2002 models)
• F-Super Duty diesels (1993-1997, 1999-2003 models)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration wants Ford users to check for indicators that a vehicle may be a possible fire hazard: malfunctioning brake lights, a cruise-control system that is not working properly, problems moving the vehicle out of park gear, or brake warning lights that are lit up on the vehicle’s dashboard.

The risk of a fire hazard may be especially high for the Ford Windstars. Ford says the 3.4 million other autos that are part of the recall were included because they also were made with the Texas Instruments switch. Texas Instruments, however, says that the switch is just one component in Ford's system.

Ford Is Recalling More Vehicles Over Fire Problem, New York Times, October 13, 2009

Ford Recalls 4.5 Million Vehicles Because of Fire Hazard, Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2009

Ford Document: Millions of vehicles have fire risk part, CNN, June 27, 2005

Iowa family suing ford over fire, CNN, June 17, 2005

Related Web Resources:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ford Recalls

Continue reading "Ford Recall of 4.5 Million Autos Over Faulty Cruise Control Deactivation Switch Increases Number of Vehicles Affected to Over 14 Million " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Recalls , Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

Last week, Toyota announced what to date is its largest auto recall ever. 3.8 million Lexus and Toyota cars are to be called back over concerns that the all-weather floor mat might cause the accelerator pedal to jam. The recall comes one month after a California highway patrol officer and his family died in a tragic car crash after he was unable to stop his 2009 Lexus ES 350.

Witnesses say the vehicle that CHP Officer Mark Saylor was driving was moving at a very high speed and flames were emanating from the tires before it crashed. Someone who made a 911 call from the vehicle said that the brakes weren’t working. Police investigating the tragic car wreck believe that the gas pedal got stuck in the rubber mat.

On Friday, Akio Toyoda, the president of Toyota, called the accident “extremely” regrettable. He offered his condolences and remorse.

The deadly car crash involving the Saylor family is not the first time that similar problems with the floor mat have been reported. More than 100 complaints have been filed over the dangerous floor mats, including reports of several deaths and numerous injuries.

Just this summer, Troy Edwin Johnson’s family settled a wrongful death claim against Toyota for auto products liability. Johnson died in July 2007 when a Toyota Camry speeding at about 120 miles per hour struck his vehicle. His body was severely burned in the fiery car crash. An investigation by police revealed that the Camry’s driver tried to stop her vehicle but that the vehicle’s floor mat may have caused the gas pedal to jam.

Auto Products Liability
Car manufacturers are supposed to make sure their autos are free from defects. When auto defects are discovered, the automaker must remedy the problem so that injuries and deaths are prevented. With respect to the deadly floor mats, The New York Times says that Toyota and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has known about their defective design since at least March 2007 after five complaints were made. This prompted a recall. Research conducted at a NHTSA test center determined that because of the accelerator pedal’s design, it could easily become entrapped in the rubber groove of a floor mat that wasn’t properly secured.

If you or someone you love was injured in a car crash that was caused by an auto defect, do not hesitate to contact an experienced auto products liability law firm about your wrongful death or personal injury case.

President of Toyota Apologizes, NY Times, October 3, 2009

Floor mat may have trapped accelerator in CHP officer's crash, death, SignonSanDiego, September 9, 2009

Toyota Floor Mat Recall Could Have Been Issued Earlier, About Lawsuits, October 4, 2009

Toyota: 3.8 million cars with risky floor mats, CNN Money, October 2, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Toyota News Releases, Toyota

Safer Car, NHTSA

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Recalls , Automotive Product Liability , Floor Mats , Toyota Safety Issues

Bookmark:

A jury has awarded a 12-year-old boy a $12 million tire tread separation verdict for injuries he sustained in a 2006 New Years Eve auto accident in Mexico. Jesus Guzman, who was 10 at the time, is now paralyzed. The tire was a Goodrich tire made by Michelin & Cie.

The deadly motor vehicle accident happened outside Matamoros when one of the tires of a 2002 Ford F-250 pickup truck failed, causing the motor vehicle to swerve head on into a Chevrolet suburban. Everyone riding the SUV died—four of the casualties were under age 14. Loved ones who were riding in the pickup truck along with Guzman were injured.

According to the defective tire lawsuit involving injuries to a child, leaking roofs and broken air conditioners at a Michelin plant caused the tire maker’s machines to make defective tires that could likely fail. By issuing its $11.96 million verdict against Michelin for Guzman's spinal cord injury, the Texas jury rejected the tire manufacturer’s claim that the Ford truck’s bumper had scraped off the top of the tire.

Tire Tread Separation
The treads of a tire (especially steel-belted radial tires) can become separated. Because the steel does not properly adhere to the tire, driving at high speeds or hot weather can cause the separation to happen. Tire tread separation is linked to design and manufacturing defects.

Tire tread separation can lead to tire blowouts that can cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle and drive off the road, into oncoming traffic, or roll over. SUV’s are especially prone to rollover crashes during a tire blowout.

The fallout from being involved in an auto accident caused by tire tread separation can be catastrophic.

Just last week, the six members of the Scotland Yard Gospel Choir were hurt during a van rollover crash that was caused by what investigators believe was tire failure. Head trauma and broken bones were some of the injuries that the victims sustained.

Auto crashes that are a result of tire defects, including tire failure, tire tread separation, tire blowouts, and tire/rim explosions are preventable. This is one reason that a tire maker should be held liable for auto products liability. Car crashes can be deadly, which is why it is a tire manufacturer’s responsibility to make sure that their tires are free from defects that could cause a deadly motor vehicle accident.

Michelin Tire Tread Separation Lawsuit Results in $12M Verdict, AboutLawsuits, September 21, 2009

Michelin Loses $12 Million Verdict in Suit Over Crash, Bloomberg.com, September 10, 2009

Chicago's Scotland Yard Gospel Choir injured in van accident, Chicago Sun-Times, September 25, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Tires, NHTSA

Consumer Reports

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Injuries to Children & Minors , Kids in Cars , Spinal Cord Injuries , States , Texas , Tires

Bookmark:

A bankruptcy judge has approved a $24 million auto products liability settlement between Chrysler and the family of Richard Mraz. In 2007, Mraz’s loved ones won a $55 million jury award for the 38-year-old’s wrongful death. DaimlerChrysler, however, appealed the verdict, and the appeal was delayed after the auto manufacturer filed for bankruptcy in April. Negotiations between the automaker and the Mraz family's auto products liability lawyers ensued, resulting in this new settlement.

Products liability plaintiffs have expressed frustration and worry that Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings would prevent them from recovering personal injury and wrongful death compensation. The new Chrysler Group LLC had initially agreed to accept products liability for vehicles that were manufactured after the bankruptcy but has now agreed to accept older liabilities for injuries that were sustained after it emerged from bankruptcy last June. Chrysler auto products liability lawsuits for cases that occurred prior to the Chapter 11 filing will be limited to the old company’s assets.

The auto products liability lawyers representing Mraz’s family had insisted that Chrysler post bond during the appeals process, which allowed for negotiations with the appeal bond issuer to take place.

Mraz, 38, sustained fatal head injuries on April 13, 2004 after he was run over by the 1992 Dodge Dakota he had been driving moments before the deadly car accident. His family sued DaimlerChrysler for wrongful death. They claimed that the “park-to-reverse” defect is what killed Mraz.

Also known as “false park," the “park to reverse” defect is a auto part flaw that allows the transmission shift selector to get stuck in the position between park and reverse while the engine is running. The slightest movement can cause the shift selector to slip into reverse and the vehicle can end up moving backwards to strike a pedestrian, the driver (if he or she steps out of the vehicle), or another vehicle.

DaimlerChrysler had received more than 1,000 auto products liability complaints over this defect.

Judge OKs $24M Chrysler wrongful death settlement, AP, September 24, 2009

More Chrysler Personal Injury Lawsuits Will Be Recognized by New Company, About Lawsuits, August 31, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Chrysler injury victims protest outside company headquarters, ABC News, July 27, 2009

Chrysler LLC

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , California , States , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Denver’s Craig Hospital, a nationally known and respected hospital, now caring for spinal cord and brain- injured patients, was founded by Frank Craig in Lakewood, CO in 1907 for the treatment of indigent men with tuberculosis. Its initial name was “Tent Colony of Brotherly Love.” In 1909, the name was changed to Craig Colony in memory of its founder.

In 1955, with the decline of tuberculosis, the facility started treating multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, polio and spinal cord injuries. Within two years, with a new medical director, Dr. John Young, Craig began shifting its focus exclusively to spinal cord and brain injuries. Craig officially became known as “Craig Rehabilitation Center.” In 1966, the name became “Craig Rehabilitation Hospital” Dr. Young is considered the founder of modern Craig.

In 1969, Craig moved from Lakewood to Denver and built an 80-bed rehabilitation hospital on the ground of Swedish Hospital. The two were connected by a tunnel. By 1970, Craig began an in-house neurosurgical program.

1974 saw the opening of a shared Neurotrauma Unit at Swedish Hospital, designed by Dr. Harry R. Hahn. It was one of the first models of its kind. Finally, in 1975, Craig became “Craig Hospital.”

The Traumatic Injury Team was created distinct from the Spinal Cord Injury Teams under the direction of Dr. Hahn ad was soon thereafter intensely developed by Dr. Mark Cilo. In 1978, “Pete” Peterson, M.D. published a leading text, “The Management of High Quadriplegia” in 1989.

In 1980, Craig Hospital staff was instrumental in the creation and early development of the Colorado Head Injury Foundation, now known as the Brain Injury Association of Colorado. In 1983, Craig expanded by 63,000 square feet, which included a large gymnasium, an outpatient clinic, a media studio, therapy areas and department offices.

In 1989, U.S. News and World Report began ranking hospitals. Craig was ranked in the top 10 rehabilitation hospitals in the U.S. Craig physicians and staff are widely sought after for presentations and publications, averaging 75 professional presentations a year and publishing 20-25 articles and book chapter per year.

Craig has received numerous prestigious awards over the years for its outstanding medical and support staff and excellent facilities.

Continue reading "Craig Hospital in Colorado One of the Very Best" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Brain Injuries , Catastrophic Injuries , Colorado , Injuries to Children & Minors , Spinal Cord Injuries , Spinal Cord Injuries , Traumatic Brain Injuries

Bookmark:

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, & Komyatte, 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" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , Toyota Safety Issues , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

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

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Florida , Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , States , Toyota Safety Issues , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

American Honda Motor Company says it is adding another 440,000 Honda autos to a recall it announced last November over a possible defect in the vehicles’ airbag inflation systems. 2001 Civics, 2001-2002 Accords, and 2002-2003 Acura TL’s are included in this expanded recall, but not all autos from these model years are part of the recall.

At least one death and six injuries are being linked to the airbag defect, which involves “airbag inflators that produce over-pressurization of the driver’s front airbag inflator mechanism” when the airbag deploys. This can cause a rupture in the inflator casing. Metal fragments might then go through the airbag cushion’s cloth material, possibly injuring or killing a vehicle occupant.

Car owners whose vehicles may be potentially affected by the recall will get a recall notice in the mail. Honda also has directed owners that have models mentioned to check the car maker’s Web site for more information (see link below).

While airbags are designed to keep people safe during a car accident, this isn’t always the case. One reason for this is that the increase in airbag manufacturing has led to an increase in injuries caused by defective air bag systems.

According to Safercar.gov, in the last 21 years, frontal air bags saved the lives of 25,782 people. However, in order to save people’s lives, the airbag has to deploy in the correct way at the correct time. In the last 12 years, over 4 million motor vehicles have been recalled because of possible air defects. There also have been numerous air bag-related complaints that did not necessarily warrant a recall but still may have caused injuries.

It can be frustrating to know that your loved one’s life might have been saved if only a particular airbag deployed correctly or did not pose another type of safety hazard that caused serious injury. Injuries caused by any vehicle defect can be grounds for an auto products liability lawsuit.

When an auto manufacturer makes a mistake by designing a defective airbag system and someone dies or gets hurt, it is time to see if the car maker can be held liable for products liability.

Honda adds 440,000 cars to recall over airbags, CNN.com, July 31, 2009

American Honda Expands Airbag Safety Recall, WSJ, July 31, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Honda

Defects and Recalls, Safercars.gov

Continue reading "Serious Airbag Defect Leads Honda to Recall 440,000 More Civics, Accords, and Acura TL’s" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Air Bags , Auto Recalls , Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The recent bankruptcy filings by General Motors and Chrysler prevent victims of defective vehicles manufactured by G.M. and Chrysler from suing for any compensation for injuries or deaths caused by such vehicles before the bankruptcy filing. The amount of such claims is estimated at $1.25 billion.

In the case of General Motors only, an agreement reached between the Obama administration and G.M. provides that persons who are injured or killed by G.M.’s defective and unreasonably dangerous vehicles after the “new” G.M entity emerges from bankruptcy, including injury and death claims caused by vehicles manufactured by the “old” G.M. before the bankruptcy filing, will have the right to sue the new G.M. Injuries and deaths that occurred before the bankruptcy filing are discharged by the filing, meaning that victims will probably never be compensated, no matter how meritorious their claims may be. (Some GM/Chrysler consumers have been killed or seriously injured by seatbelts that come unbuckled during a crash because of elbow contact. Other examples include consumers paralyzed by roofs that crush in on the occupant in moderate rollovers.) The G.M. agreement was prompted by G.M.’s fear that litigation over this issue may delay its emergence from bankruptcy. As of this date, Chrysler has not reached a similar agreement.

Although warranty claims on vehicles manufactured pre-bankruptcy could legally be discharged by the filing, both General Motors and Chrysler have proposed in their reorganization plans to honor such claims. (In other words, “parts before people”). Similarly, both corporations have agreed to have a continuing obligation to recall vehicles with safety-related defects and vehicles that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It is difficult to understand, therefore, exactly why General Motors and Chrysler want to relieve themselves of paying just compensation for injuries and deaths caused by those same unsafe vehicles before the bankruptcy filings.

Do ethics and morality apply to vehicle manufacturers? Is it ethical to receive a multi-billion dollar infusion of public funds and then throw victims under the bus? Is it moral to honor an obligation to an inanimate object (a vehicle warranty), but not honor an obligation to a severely injured person or to the family of a deceased person? Should a corporation not pay for injuries and deaths it causes? How can the consuming public be expected to trust American corporations that do not assume responsibility for their unreasonably dangerous and defective vehicles? Is it a lack of integrity for the manufacturer to know that there are millions(?) of dangerous vehicles still on the road, but ignore many of those persons who have been and inevitably will be killed or injured by those vehicles? Chrysler and G.M. should be required to answer these questions to the satisfaction of its customers. William Clay Ford, Jr. emphasized Ford’s commitment to ethical standards: “One of the noteworthy Business Principles is our commitment to accountability, where we pledge to ‘be honest and open and model the highest standards of corporate integrity.’ Since our commitment to conducting business fairly and honestly began a century ago, integrity is not a novel concept at Ford. It does, however, require a personal commitment by each of us to act ethically in a rapidly changing business environment and confirm our actions to the high standards that we set for ourselves.”

. ..“Fulfilling our commitment to accountability and focusing on ‘doing the right thing’ will help us succeed in all that we do.”

...At Ford: “Quality is Job 1.” At Ford: “Ethics is Job 1”. At General Motors and Chrysler: “The Bottom Line is Job 1!”

~Jim Gilbert~

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

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 ½ 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

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 15-Passenger Vans , Automotive Product Liability , California , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , States

Bookmark:

According to a federal appeals court, a Utah auto products liability lawsuit over a 2005 15-passenger van rollover accident that killed eight Utah State University students and one instructor and seriously injured two other students can proceed. The 15-passenger van complaint was filed in district court last year—but Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., the remaining defendant in the wrongful death case, had tried to get the case thrown out.

The tire company, which made the tires that were on the van, had expressed concern that certain information needed for the case would have exposed company secrets. The appeals court, however, says the plaintiffs are entitled to know how the tires were manufactured.

The students and their agriculture instructor were coming back to school after visiting a farm during a field trip when the deadly crash happened. The 15-passenger van rolled over a number of times after one of the tires blew out. The plaintiffs’ wrongful death complaint accuses Cooper Tire of knowing that the tire was defective yet failing to remedy the tire's defects.

The families of the victims that died settled their products liability complaint against Chrysler more than a year ago. The plaintiffs had accused the auto manufacturer of making a van with an unsafe gravity center, defective tires, and unsafe seat belts.

15-Passenger Vans
15-passenger vans have long been known for their high rollover risk because of the way they are designed. Last month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an advisory warning all 15-passenger van users to exercise the necessary safety precautions to prevent a rollover accident from happening. Recommendations include:

• Check tires for wear and tear, and make sure that they are properly inflated. Tires that are not fully inflated on a 15-passenger van is a common cause of rollover accidents, especially when the van is fully loaded.
• Ensure that everyone in the van is using a seat belt.
• Do not drive the van unless you are properly trained to operate this type of vehicle.

The NHTSA says that 15-passenger vans carrying 10 or more passengers have a rollover risk that is almost three times greater than vans carrying less than 5 passengers. This means that using a 15-passenger van the way that it was intended—to carry 15 passengers—places vehicle occupants at risk of getting injured in a rollover crash.

Cooper Tire told to supply information, UPI.com, June 10, 2009

Appeals court gets USU van lawsuit rolling again, The Salt Lake Tribune, June 6, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Fatalities to Occupants of 15-Passenger Vans, 2003 - 2007 (PDF)

15-Passenger Vans, IIHS

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 15-Passenger Vans , Automotive Product Liability , Tires , Utah , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Last week, a number of car accident victims and their families traveled to Washington DC to ask lawmakers for help. As injured parties, they want to make sure that they will still receive compensation for their products liability and personal injury claims even though General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy proceedings generally place a temporary freeze on civil lawsuits, and plaintiffs end up becoming one of many unsecured creditors waiting to divide up whatever funds are left after the debts owed to secured creditors are paid off first. For auto products liability victims that were catastrophically injured in a GM or a Chrysler motor vehicle—and currently uninjured motorists that could get hurt in a defective GM or Chrysler car in the future—this outcome could pose a huge financial concern.

About 500 to 1,000 people are seriously injured or killed in auto products liability-related motor vehicle crashes each year. Approximately 300 Americans are currently suing Chrysler for products liability, and some 1,200 others are suing GM.

In New York, consumer groups are appealing the sale of Chrysler to Fiat because the new company isn’t going to be responsible for the old company’s losses, including personal injury settlements and verdicts. Center for Auto Safety Executive Director Clarence Ditlow wants the bankruptcy system or the Obama Administration to make sure that Chrysler and GM products liability victims and their families are taken care of. Meantime, the Center for Justice and Democracy want the two motor vehicle manufacturers to buy retroactive insurance polices that would cover past and future claims.

Among the victims that are fighting to recover the compensation they are owed:

• Couple Joseph and Jeanne Polio were hoping to obtain products liability compensation because Jeanne sustained catastrophic injuries during a 2005 rollover accident involving a Chrysler SUV. She now suffers from a spinal cord injury and is paralyzed from the waist down.

• 37-year-old Mark Noveck, who became a quadriplegic in a GM SUV rollover accident, settled his products liability lawsuit against the auto manufacturer right before the company filed for bankruptcy. His products liability lawyer says the $999,999 settlement was a form of “surrender” because it was better than possibly not getting anything.

Families and Severely-Injured Victims of Defective GM and Chrysler Cars Travel to Washington to Seek Urgent Help, Red Orbit, June 3, 2009

Chrysler bankruptcy stalls couple’s product liability case, NH Register, May 26, 2009

Injured little girl facing uphill fight in lawsuit against reeling GM, Daily News, May 26, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Chrysler Bankruptcy and Product Liability, NY Times, May 20, 2009

GM rescue dumps crash victims, Asiatimes.com, June 9, 2009

Continue reading "General Motors and Chrysler Bankruptcies: Consumer Groups Fight to Ensure Products Liability and Personal Injury Recovery " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The Obama Administration’s recent unveiling of a new fuel economy and emissions initiative is raising some issues of concern over whether the proposed changes will compromise auto safety. If finalized, the initiative would establish a fuel economy standard of 35.5 mph by 2016. Vehicle categories covered under this joint rulemaking put forth by the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency include sport utility vehicles, passenger cars, pickup trucks, and minivans—autos that account for nearly 60% of greenhouse gas emissions.

In a USA Today article, former Office of Management and Budget rulemaking chief John Graham expressed concern that automakers, already financially strapped, might have to compromise safety in order to meet the initiative’s deadlines and, for example, make smaller, less safe cars. This solution could have huge ramifications on people's lives.

Recent studies conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that bigger and heavier cars still have the advantage over their smaller vehicle counterparts when it comes to protecting vehicle occupants during an auto crash. If safety is compromised in any way, there is concern that this could reverse the decline in the number of motor vehicle deaths that the US has experienced recently. Last year's US traffic death rate is expected to be even lower than 2007's traffic death rate.

White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Director Carol Browner disagrees with these concerns and says that car makers can use new technologies to meet the new fuel standards. Many environmentalists agree with the Obama Administration and say that car makers will merely have to create better vehicle designs and use lighter materials to make their autos.

However, these new approaches could cost more money that currently is in such short supply among even the biggest players in the auto industry that the government has had to provide financial assistance. Just this week, the Obama Administration announced a $7.5 billion bailout to GMAC, which is the auto lender to Chrysler and GMC. This is in addition to the $6 billion that GMAC already received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Meantime, the federal government has had to take the costs of auto safety into account. For example, the Bush Administration delayed the release of new federal standards mandating stronger car roofs that can withstand more weight during an auto crash over concern that they would be too expensive for car makers to implement. The tougher roof standards were finally announced last month.

Auto Products Liability
Vehicle occupant safety must remain a primary priority for car makers when they are designing and manufacturing their motor vehicles. If your injuries or your loved one’s death was the result of an auto defect, you should speak with our auto products liability law firm today.

Safety could suffer if we boost mileage by making cars smaller, USA Today, May 20, 2009

Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking to Establish Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards, NHTSA, May 19, 2009

New Emissions Changes May Not Be Safe, KIMA TV, May 21, 2009

Another $7.5 billion bailout for GMAC, CNN.com, May 21, 2009

Related Web Resources:
IIHS Crash Tests Reveal that Bigger and Heavier Motor Vehicles Exhibit Greater Occupant Protection During Auto Collisions

Read the Notice of Intent for the Rulemaking, NHTSA (PDF)

Continue reading "Auto Products Liability: Will New Fuel Economy Standard Compromise Vehicle Safety?" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

According to the US Department of Transportation, each year 22,372 serious injuries and 1,652 traffic deaths could be prevented by the use of seat belts, which reportedly saved 15,147 lives in 2007, if seat belt use rates in each use state was at 90%. US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls safety belt use the “most effective traffic safety device every invented.”

To show people how serious safety and transportation officials throughout the US are about promoting the use of safety belts, the “Click It or Ticket” campaign will take place this year from May 18 – 31. Over 10,000 police agencies are expected to patrol the streets to catch and cite people that are caught not using seat belts when riding in motor vehicles.

Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Occupant Protection Use Survey reports that the seat belt use rate for 2008 was 83%. However, one out of every five Americans still does not buckle up.

Teens are an age group of special concern. 2,502 of the 4,540 16-20 year old auto occupant victims that died in 2007 were not using seatbelts. 65% of the teen drivers that died in nighttime car accidents that year were not using seat belts.

Defective Seat Belts
In order for seat belt use to save lives and prevent serious injuries, the safety belt must be free from defects so that it works properly. Unfortunately, seat belt defects do occur and car makers have been known to recall vehicles because of defective safety belts. Also, injury victims and the surviving families of those who have died because a seat belt malfunctioned or had a defect have sought products liability and wrongful death recovery from the negligent manufacturers.

Recently, a woman who became paralyzed in a 2006 Colorado rollover accident was awarded a $4.23 million seatbelt defect judgment against Ford Co. Erica Hoffman’s auto products liability lawsuit contended that the seat belt was faulty and that it came unlatched during the auto accident.

A Colorado jury awarded Hoffman $18 million, assigning 25% of the liability to Ford. She also settled with TRW Automotive Safety Systems Inc, the company that made the seat belt, as well as the driver of the 1999 Ford Mercury Cougar Coupe that was involved in her rollover accident.

Car makers and seat belt manufacturers must be held liable for negligence when they make and install safety belts that are defective. Vehicle occupants rely on safety belts to keep them secure in the event of a motor vehicle crash. A seat belt that doesn’t work properly can cause a vehicle occupant to hit his or her head against the windows or roof of a car. He or she can also get thrown out of the vehicle. A person whose seat belt unlatches during an auto accident could end up with a traumatic brain injury, a spinal cord injury, or massive internal injuries that might otherwise have been prevented.

New Study: Higher Seat Belt Use Could Save Many Lives, NHTSA, May 14, 2009

Woman wins $4.23 million from Ford in lawsuit, Examiner.com, May 1, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Click it or Ticket, NHTSA

Seat Belt Use in 2008 - Use Rates in the States and Territories (PDF)

Continue reading "Nationwide “Click It or Ticket” Campaign A Reminder of How Seat Belts—When Defect-Free—Can Save Lives" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Colorado , Defective Seatbelt and Restraint System Cases , Seat Belts , States

Bookmark:

A California family is suing Toyota for wrongful death. The Benson family contends that the car manufacturer failed to properly notify them that the steering relay rod in their motor vehicle was defective and, as a result, their 18-month-old toddler died in an auto crash.

The deadly California car accident occurred on Christmas Eve in 1997 when the steering relay rod, which connects the two wheels, broke and Cindi Benson lost control of the vehicle. The Toyota went off the road and hit a tree. Lilian Benson died from her injuries on Christmas day. Her siblings, Frank Benson, then 4, and Laquita Benson, then 7, sustained injuries.

This is not the first auto products liability lawsuit to be filed against Toyota over a defective steering relay rod. Earlier this year, the parents of Levi Stewart sued the car maker for failing to issue a recall in the 90’s over the faulty auto part. A recall was eventually issued the following decade but only at first in Japan.

Stewart, 18, died on September 15, 2007 when the steering relay rod of his Toyota pickup truck broke and he lost control of the vehicle. Friends who were in the truck with him sustained serious injuries. Stewart's father, Mike Stewart, did not receive a notice from Toyota that the 1991 truck may have contained a defective part until three month's after his son's death.

Toyota issued its recall of the defective steering relay rod in the US in 2005. A letter sent that year by Toyota’s North American subsidiary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration noted that there could be 977,839 motor vehicles affected by the defective auto part, including the:

• Toyota 4Runner, 1989 to 1995 models
• Toyota Truck, 1989 to 1995 models
• Toyota T100, 1993 to 1998 models

The Benson family’s California wrongful death attorney says that only about 30% of the cars had been repaired a year and a half after the recall was announced and not everyone was properly notified about the recall. Usually, a repair of approximately 70% of the vehicles that are part of a recall is considered the pass/fail rate.

Other auto products liability lawsuits have been filed by families in Louisiana and Kentucky.

Humboldt family says faulty Toyota car part resulted in baby's death, Times-Standard, May 11, 2009

Idaho family sues after son dies in recalled Toyota, KTVB, March 26, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Auto Recalls, Justia

Toyota

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , California , Idaho , Kentucky , Louisiana , Toyota Safety Issues , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

To increase occupant protection during rollover accidents, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is instituting new roof safety standards for light vehicles and heavier vehicles that will result in dramatically stronger vehicle roof structures. Under the new standard, light vehicles weighing up to 6,000 pounds will have to withstand a force of three times the vehicle’s weight. This is a significant increase from the current standard that requires a vehicle to withstand 1.5 times the vehicle weight applied to one side of the roof. Heavier vehicles, weighing from 6,000 to 10,000 pounds, will now have an actual roof safety standards they will have to meet. Their roofs will have to withstand a force equivalent to 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight. The phase-in period will start in September 2012 and must be completed for all vehicles within these weight ranges by the 2017 model year.

While this new standard should increase passenger protection during rollover crashes, the NHTSA is quick to point out that strengthening vehicles’ roofs is only one solution to preventing rollover deaths. About 10,000 people are killed in the US each year in rollover crashes, and roof strength was a factor in only 667 of those deaths. The NHTSA estimates that the new roof safety standards will prevent another 135 rollover fatalities from occurring each year.

There are other safety measures that auto makers can implement to prevent rollover accidents. The NHTSA says electronic stability control (ESC) can reduce rollover deaths by anywhere from 4,200 to 5,500 fatalities each year. Safety belts is another effective countermeasure that the NHTSA says saves lives during rollover crashes—reducing deaths by 80% in light trucks and 74% in passenger cars. According to studies, an ejected vehicle occupant has a three times greater chance of dying than a vehicle occupant who manages to stay in the vehicle during an auto accident. Use of seat belts is one way to keep occupants securely fastened in their vehicles.

It is up to vehicle manufacturers to make sure that they meet federal safety standards and that they install safety device that are free from defects and in proper working condition in the autos that they sell. When failure to make vehicles and auto parts that are free from defects results in personal injury or wrongful death, the auto maker and other liable parties may be held liable for products liability.

Proving negligence in a rollover accident can be tough—especially in rollover collisions involving just one vehicle. This is why you need to work with rollover accident attorneys who have the experience, skills, and resources to successfully pursue your financial recovery.

U.S. DOT Doubles Roof Strength Standard for Light Vehicles, NHTSA, April 30, 2009

Read the Final Rule (PDF)

Related Web Resources:
Roof Strength and Injury Risk, IIHS (PDF)

Safercar.gov

Continue reading "Federal Government Improves Rollover Protection by Doubling New Roof Safety Standard for Light Vehicles and Introducing Standards for Heavier Autos " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

Government investigators and bus safety advocates want the federal government to come up with stronger safety regulations for the US commercial bus industry. The call came at a National Transportation Safety Board hearing this week when investigators announced that speeding was the cause of a deadly 2008 bus accident in Utah.

At the hearing, federal investigators said speeding and driver fatigue were the likely causes of the deadly January 6, 2008 bus crash that occurred in the Utah town of Mexican Hat in the Four Corners area. The bus driver, age 71, was probably driving somewhere between 88 and 92 miles per hour and experiencing altitude sickness along with a head cold when the deadly crash happened. He also may have been suffering from sleep apnea. The bus, which was transporting 56 people who had been on a Colorado ski trip, moved toward the guardrail before falling off an embankment. The roof of the bus was sheared off and the majority of the passengers were ejected from the vehicle. 9 people died, while 43 others sustained injuries, some of which were severe.

The investigators chastised the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration for its failure to execute safety recommendations from 1999 when the NTSB called for stronger motor coach roofs—a safey measure that could have saved the lives of people killed in the Utah crash. The NTSB had also recommended seat belts and windows that are easy-to-open that could have prevented certain catastrophic injuries and saved many lives over the past 10 years. Now investigators are saying that it's time to make these necessary changes as well as improve its medical oversight of bus drivers who may be suffering from certain health issues, such as sleep apnea.

Another way to improve bus safety is to implement stability-control technology that could decrease the number of rollover bus accidents—the leading cause of bus accident deaths. Safety advocates also point out that making bus owners comply with tougher safety regulations would make bus travel a lot safer.

Cheaper bus prices, more convenient bus connections, and a troubled airline industry has resulted in more people traveling on buses. Some 750 million bus passengers travel in over 34,000 commercial buses in the US and Canada annually.

Motor Coach Bus Accident Facts
Between 2000 and 2007, there were over 57,000 motor coach crashes that claimed the lives of 401 people. In the past eight months alone, there have been catastrophic rollover bus accidents in California, Arizona, and Missouri that have killed 25 people. About 30 to 50 people die in US bus collisions every year.

Any kind of motor vehicle defect is a dangerous defect and one that can cause injuries and deaths. It is the obligation of commercial bus manufacturers to make sure that there are no defects or deficiencies in the design of a bus that could allow for serious injuries or deaths to occur. Federal and state safety departments must also make sure that they have safety regulations that force bus makers to comply with stricter safety standards.

If you have been injured in a bus accident caused by driver negligence, you may have grounds for a personal injury lawsuit. You also may have grounds for a products liability lawsuit if deficient design or a defective bus part was a contributing factor in causing the bus accident.

Bus Safety Rules Are Long Overdue, Board Says, Washington Post, April 22, 2009

Bus Crash Hearing Brings Calls for Stronger Safety Regulation, PeterGreenberg.com, April 22, 2009

Related Web Resources:
National Transportation Safety Board

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Continue reading "Bus Safety Advocates Call For Better Federal Safety Regulations to Minimize Injuries and Deaths on Commercial Buses" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Arizona , Automotive Product Liability , California , Colorado , Missouri , Utah

Bookmark:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Yamaha Motor Corp USA have announced a “free repair” program of approximately 120,000 off-highway recreational vehicles. This program refers to the the Rhino 660 , the Rhino 700, and the Rhino 450. The purpose of this free repair service is to make some modifications to the all-terrain vehicles to minimize the chances of a rollover accident happening.

While some media sources are calling this repair program a recall, Yamaha has been quick to say that this is not an official recall. Either way, there have been over 50 incidents resulting in 46 fatalities to both drivers and passengers, as well as hundreds of injuries, since the vehicles were first distributed in 2003.

Over 2/3rds of the accidents involved rollover crashes. The CPSC says that many of the rollover accidents took place when the driver was turning the two-passenger vehicles on level ground and moving at a slow speed. In certain cases, the rider who was injured or killed may not have been using a safety belt.

Although the off-road vehicles are supposed to be driven only by people 16 years of age or older that have actual driver’s licenses, some of the deaths involved younger people who were either riding or operating the vehicles against the manufacturer’s recommendation.

The repairs are intended to improve handling, better contain the riders’ limbs within the vehicles, and reduce rollover accidents. A rear wheel spacer will be installed and a rear-anti-sway bar will be taken off. Yamaha vehicles that have yet to be sold will also be repaired.

Injuries related to these Yamahas have been known to be severe. One girl lost her arm in an ATV accident two years ago when she was on a Rhino. Other Rhino-related injuries have included crushed bones, broken bones, damaged muscles, and death.

The Yamaha Rhino is a cross between a utility vehicle and a smaller ATV. Its design seems to cause a number of stability issues. It doesn’t help that this vehicle doesn’t have to adhere to the safety standards that typical ATV’s have to abide by because it comes with a steering wheel and not handle bars.

Although consumers must listen to manufacturer warnings and operate their all-terrain vehicle as intended, it is also the responsibility of the off-road vehicle manufacturer to make sure that their vehicles are designed in a manner that is free from any inherent defects that could cause injury or death.

To date, there have been approximately 200 personal injury lawsuits filed against Yamaha, which maintains that many of the injuries and deaths occurred because of improper operation and the failure to use safety equipment. Yamaha has, however, settled some of the products liability lawsuits against it.

Yamaha Motor Corp. Offers Free Repair For 450, 660, and 700 Model Rhino Vehicles, CPSC, March 31, 2009

Off-road vehicles recalled after 46 deaths, Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2009

Yamaha off-road vehicles linked to deaths-US govt, Reuters, March 31, 2009

Continue reading "Yamaha Motor Corp USA Calls Back 120,000 Off-Road Vehicles Following 46 Fatalities for Free Repairs to Prevent Rollover Accidents" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has unveiled its new roof strength rating system for motor vehicles. The IIHS says that out of the 12 small SUV’s that were tested, only four of them earned a “good” rating, which is the highest rating possible.

The roof strength test pushes a metal plate against one side of the roof at a regular speed, and before getting crushed five inches, the roof must have withstood a force that is four times more than the weight of the vehicle. To earn an acceptable rating, the SUV must exhibit a minimum strength-to-weight ration of 3.25, which is also influenced by the vehicle weight and the engine size. SUVs with roofs that performed well on the Institute’s test have roofs that are at least 2.5 times stronger than the federal government’s minimum roof strength safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s current roof safety standard, established in 1973, calls for passenger vehicles to be able to withstand during a rollover crash a force that is 1.5 greater than the motor vehicle’s weight. Although the federal government is pushing to have the strength-to-weight ratio upgraded to 2.5 and to have this standard apply to vehicles with a gross weight of more than 6,000 (which would include the larger SUV’s and pickup trucks), the Institute is pushing for even tougher standards.

IHS Roof Strength Test Results:
Volkswagen Tiguan – ranked first among vehicles that earned a “good” vehicle roof rating.
Jeep Patriot – Good
Subaru Foster – Good
Honda Element – Good
Mistubishi Outlander – Acceptable
Suzuki Grand Vitara – Acceptable
Toyota RAV4 – Acceptable
Chevrolet Equinox – Acceptable
Nissan Rouge – Acceptable
Ford Escape – Marginal
Honda CRV – Marginal
Kia – Poor

The Institute says the roof strength rating system will hopefully make it even easier for buyers to choose the safest motor vehicles. The roof strength rating system will also play a role in the selection of IIHS’s 2010 Top Safety Picks.

While SUV roofs are now designed so that they are stronger than those that were made a few years back, there are still over 10,000 people a year that are killed in rollover accidents. 25% of all passenger occupant fatalities involved minivans or cars rolling over, with SUV’s considered highly susceptible to rollover accidents.

A rollover accident will frequently damage a vehicle’s roof, crushing or deforming it and causing serious injury to vehicle occupants. This is why the stronger the roof, the greater the protection for those inside the motor vehicle. Auto manufacturers can no longer afford to make vehicles with roofs that are poorly designed or constructed.

Roof strength is focus of new rating system; 4 of 12 small SUVs evaluated earn top marks, IIHS.org, March 24, 2009

Roof Strength Another Step In Auto Safety, CNBC.com, March 24, 2009

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, NHTSA.gov

Roof Strength and Injury Risk in Rollover Crashes of Passenger Cars and SUVs (PDF)

Continue reading "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Presents New Roof Strength Rating System for Autos" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Roof Crush

Bookmark:

According to Forbes magazine, financial troubles don’t seem to be stopping automakers, including giant vehicle manufacturers General Motors and Ford Motor Co., from making unsafe motor vehicles. This month, the media giant issued its list of the 16 “Most Dangerous Vehicles of 2009.”

The list was compiled using results from tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. While the NHTSA issued up to 5-star ratings for rollover safety, the IIHS ranked vehicles based on the trauma that could result during frontal and side crashes. The 16 vehicles on the list, made up of small trucks, mid-sized sedans, trucks, wagons, and crossovers, scored the lowest number of compiled points.

<

Forbes’ 2009 Most Dangerous Motor Vehicle List:

1) Chevrolet Colorado
2) Chevrolet Aveo
3) Chevrolet Trailblazer
4) Chrysler PT Cruiser
5) Dodge Nitro
6) Ford Ranger
7) GMC Envoy
8) GMC Canyon
9) Hummer H3
10) Hyandai Accent
11) Jeep Liberty
12) Jeep Wrangler
13) Sukuki Equator
14) Nissan Frontier
15) Mazda B Series
16) Kia Rio

The Kia Rio sedan, the Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV, and the Ford Ranger pickup scored the lowest points.

While Forbes is is quick to caution that just because a motor vehicle made the 2009 list doesn’t mean that a consumer shouldn’t buy the vehicle, the media giant says that it is very important for consumers to be aware of which areas of safety each vehicle failed to perform well in. Forbes also recommends that buyers know whether their vehicle comes with rear head restraints, standard side-curtain airbags, and electronic stability control. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that ESC decreases the chances of passenger rollovers by 64%, single-car collisions by 26%, and single crash SUV rollovers by 85%.

Regardless of the poor financial climate and their decreased funds, auto manufacturers are responsible for making sure that they make and sell motor vehicles that are safe for use. When failure to provide a car, SUV, or truck with proper frontal or side protection or the manufacture of defective air bags, seat belts, or other auto parts results in serious injuries or deaths, the automaker can be held liable with an auto product liability claim or a wrongful death lawsuit.

Most Dangerous Vehicles Of 2009, Forbes.com, February 6, 2009

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Related Web Resources:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Car Reviews and Ratings, Consumer Reports

Continue reading "Forbes Compiles Its 2009 Most Dangerous Motor Vehicle List " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

Auto manufacturers are responsible for implementing the design and manufacturing precautions necessary to minimize the chances that their vehicles will become involved in a rollover accident. In the event a rollover accident does occur, then vehicle makers must make sure that the structure of the auto can withstand the crash and that there are safety precautions in place to prevent vehicle occupants from suffering serious injuries. Rollover accident victims and their families may be entitled to products liability or wrongful death compensation if a car maker could have done more during the design or manufacture of the vehicle to minimize the seriousness of future injuries.

Last month, the family of TV anchorwoman Polly Gonzalez filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. The plaintiffs contend that not only did the seat she was sitting on fail to work correctly, but the roof of the Ford Explorer was not sturdy enough to survive a rollover accident. Gonzales’s two children were also injured in the motor vehicle crash.

In an unrelated lawsuit, a man who became a paraplegic after his 2005 Chevrolet Colorado rolled over is suing General Motors Corporation and Davis-Barr Chevrolet Pontiac, Inc. for his spinal cord injuries. In his automotive products liability lawsuit, the man claims that the seat belt and seat of his vehicle malfunctioned. He also contends that General Motors Corp. failed to provide him with the standard of care and duty he was owed when the company failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, marketing, and sales of the vehicle he was riding in, as well as neglected to provide appropriate warnings.

Another man, who is now a quadriplegic, is suing Volkwagen for his personal injury from a 2002 auto accident. Owen Milne is seeking an unspecified amount of compensation for products liability and personal injury because the 1999 Jetta he was a passenger in flipped over as his then fiancé, Rebecca Beisswenger, swerved the car to avoid crashing into a vehicle that passed them on a curve in a no-passing zone.

Beisswenger lost control of the car, which rolled over a number of times down an embankment and back onto the highway. The support beams that were supposed to hold up the roof of the Jetta’s passenger side collapsed. Milne suffered a vertebrae fracture and his neck became compressed. The seat belt he was wearing failed to keep him securely in his seat. Mline’s personal injury lawsuit claims the 1999 Volkwagen Jetta was defectively designed and not capable of keeping its structural integrity during a rollover crash.

South Burlington man sues VW alleging Jettas are unsafe, BurlingtonFreePress.com, January 18, 2009

Lawsuit Filed in Arkansas Roll Over Accident That Left Man Paraplegic, The Open Press, January 24, 2009

Family of Vegas TV anchor suing Ford over crash, Mercury News, January 25, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Rollover, SaferCar.gov

Rollover Information and Prevention, Consumers Union

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Roof Crush , Seat Belts , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

Auto manufacturer Chrysler and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are recalling 20,283 Dodge Charger and Magnum police cars. The 2006 to 2009 models come with a police package that includes a column shifter. The recall affects vehicles made before and after the recall package refresh.

The concern is that the wrong gearshift position might be displayed if the gearshift cable gets disengaged from the steering column mounting bracket. If this occurs, the police car might move without the driver intending it to and lead to a motor vehicle crash.

So far, there have been no injuries or accidents related to this particular gear defect. However, the recall comes after 55 field reports of problems and 9 customer complaints involving the 2007 Magnum and Dodge Charger police cars. For example, in Maryland, the Montgomery County Police Department filed a report that a Chrysler vehicle might look like it was in “park” gear when it was actually in “drive” mode.”

To remedy this latest defect, Chrysler auto dealers will install a redundant locking mechanism to ensure proper retention and shift linkage function.

Gear Defects
When a driver thinks that the gear of a motor vehicle is in “park” mode and the car suddenly drives forward or reverses itself, other motorists or pedestrians can get hurt. Over the years, there have been a number of motor vehicle accidents that have led to personal injury or wrongful death cases because of park transmission defects in other Chrysler vehicles. School kids and young children are especially susceptible to serious injury if the car that they are walking in front or behind of that they think is parked suddenly accelerates unintentionally or kicks into reverse.

While motor vehicle crashes do occur because of negligent driving, many auto accidents happen because of manufacturing defects. It is important to hold an auto manufacturer liable if an auto defect is the cause of someone’s injury or death.

Chrysler Recalls 20,000 Dodge Police Cars,The Boston Channel, November 11, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Chrysler

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Continue reading "Chrysler and NHTSA Announce Recall of 20,283 Dodge Police Vehicles Because of Gearshift Defect" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced its "final rule" on improving school bus safety. Only new buses are subject to the rule, which goes into effect in 2011.

The new rule requires new school buses to have 24-inch-high seat backs that will hopefully prevent heavier and taller kids from being thrown over their seats during a school bus crash so that they don’t injure themselves or the children riding in front of them. Also, all new school buses must now include seats with safety latches that can be removed or flipped without the use of special tools.

New Seat Belt Requirements
While smaller school buses (weighing under 5 tons) will be required to install lap and shoulder belts in all their seats, large school buses still won’t be required to come with seat belts—even though studies indicate that 1,900 injuries a year could be prevented if seat belts were installed in large school buses.

US Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters pointed out that installing seat belts in large school buses will limit how many kids could ride in the vehicles, forcing students to walk or ride in cars to school—two methods of travel that (statistically) are not considered as safe as riding in school buses. Instead, federal safety regulators are providing new criteria for installing safety belts in large school buses and leaving the discretion of whether seat belts should be installed in these buses in the hands of state and local governments.

School Bus Defects
There are 474,000 school buses in the United States. Unfortunately, there are school bus manufacturers that continue to act negligently when designing and making these motor vehicles. School bus defects, such as poorly designed handrails that can easily catch a child’s clothes or school bag straps as he or she exits or enters the bus, defective brakes, faulty tires, and defective seats, have led to school bus recalls.

When a catastrophic bus accident occurs because a school bus or one of its parts was poorly designed or made and kids on the bus or others on the road are seriously injured or killed, the school bus manufacturer and/or any other responsible parties must be held liable for products liability.

New Federal Rule to Make School Buses Safer, Allow Districts to Use Federal Funds to Pay for Seat Belt Installations, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters Announces, NHTSA, October 15, 2008

Related Web Resources:
Read the Final Rule on School Buses, NHTSA (PDF)

Recalls

Continue reading "NHTSA School Bus Safety Ruling Calls for Higher Seat Backs and Introduces New Seat Belt Requirements" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has begun its own preliminary probe into over one million Ford trucks and cars following reports that faulty tire valve stems were causing tires to leak air. Ford Motor Company, which conducted its own investigation, says that the tire valve stems do not pose a safety risk. Safety advocates, however, claim that the potential danger of sudden tire air loss should mandate a recall. In a letter to NHTSA, auto safety researcher Sean Kane, who called for the investigation into Ford’s tire valve stems, warned that drivers and tire repair shops would be unlikely to notice the defects.

The NHTSA’s investigation involves 1,050,000 2007 Ford vehicles, including the Ford F-150, Edge, Mustang, Milan, Fusion, MKZ, Mercury Grand Marquis, MKX, Explorer, Expedition, Escape, and Focus. The agency says that they have 37 complaints involving Ford motor vehicles with faulty valve stems.

23 complaints involved autos with more than one defective tire valve stem. 11 reports involved cases where an air leak caused tire damage. A valve stem is supposed to keep the air in a tire. Topseal Automotive, a subsidiary of Chinese company Shanghai Baolong, made the valve stems that are under investigation.

In May, the NHTSA began another investigation into 23 million Shanghai Baolong Automotive Corp. replacement valve stems that were made in 2006. The agency found 4,767 complaints involving these replacement stems. One complaint reported a deadly auto accident involving a 1998 Ford Explorer that experienced tire failure.

Last month, the NHTSA upgraded that probe into what it calls “Engineering Analysis.” This means that if the analysis investigation finds that the replacement valve stems, imported by Dill Air Controls Products, are defective, some 23.5 million replacement tire valves that were installed between August 2006 and July 2007 may be recalled.

Topseal Automotive told NHTSA that the replacement valve stems lacked proper protection from ozone damage, which can cause the stem bases to crack after 8 to 14 months of use and lead to air loss, tire failure or tire blowouts. Topseal supplies eight million tire valve stems each month to Ford and other car manufacturers around the world.

Ford spokesperson Wes Sherwood maintains that even though they purchased the valve stems from Topseal, the stems they use on their cars and trucks are not made from the same material that the replacement valve stems are made with. Sherwood also says that the valve stems used on Ford vehicles are made with different equipment.

Tire blowouts can lead to serious injury accidents, including vehicle rollovers, multi-vehicle collisions, and accidents involving pedestrians. You may be entitled to compensation from an auto manufacturer or tire maker if you were injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a defective tire.

Feds probe Ford tire leaks, Detroit Free Press, October 22, 2008

NHTSA steps up investigation of tire valves … but not enough, Consumer Reports, October 3, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Shanghai Baolong Automotive Corporation

Ford Motor Company

Continue reading "Federal Auto Safety Regulators Investigate More Than One Million Ford Cars and Trucks for Tire Leaks" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Tires

Bookmark:

US Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters says that more people than ever before are using safety belts. According to the latest National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures:

• 83% of vehicle occupants are wearing seat belts during daytime hours this year, compared to 82% in 2007.
• The NHTSA says that an additional 270 lives are saved for every 1% increase in seat belt use.
• 84% of car occupants are using safety belts.
• Pickup truck riders are buckling up 74% of the time.
• 86% of SUV and van riders are using seat belts.
• In 2008, safety belt use on freeways is at 90%, compared to 89% in 2007.

The NHTSA attributes the increase in seat belt use to high profile local, state, and national enforcement efforts, such as “Click It or Ticket” Campaign.

Dangers of Defective Seat Belts
Seat belt use can decrease injuries and save lives. According the NHTSA and the US Department of Transportation, 15,383 lives were saved in 2006 because of safety belt use. However, seat belts can only save lives as long as they are not defective or improperly designed.

Seat belts are supposed to keep an occupant securely in his or her seat in the event of a traffic collision. A defective or poorly designed seat belt, however, can fail to prevent a person from being thrown into the windshield or ejected from the vehicle during a serious crash and may cause additional injuries. In the event of a vehicle rollover, a person using a defective seat belt may be even more prone to catastrophic injuries.

It is the responsibility of auto manufacturers to make sure that the seat belts in their vehicles are working correctly. Unfortunately, some motor vehicle makers have been slow to admit there is a problem with a vehicle once it is out in the marketplace. For more information about defective seat belts, please visit the Seat Belt and Restraint System Defects section of our Web site for more information.

Seat Belt use Hits Record Level in 2008, DOT.gov, September 17, 2008

Seat Belt Use Report (PDF)

Related Web Resources:

Click It Or Ticket, NHTSA

Seat Belt Injuries Could Signal More Serious Trauma In Children, ScienceDaily, August 10, 2007

Continue reading "As Safety Belt Use Increases, So Does The Need to Eliminate Seat Belt Defects " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Seat Belts

Bookmark:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has finished its count of 2007 crash fatalities in the United States, and the news is good. Traffic deaths are down nearly 4%. Injuries also declined, by over 3%. We still have a long way to go. Over 41,000 people died on the nation’s highways –3,000 more than a capacity crowd at Boston’s Fenway Park. Nearly 2.5 million were injured, more than the total attendance of all the games at Denver’s Coor’s Field all season.

The news was particularly bright for passenger cars, which saw a fatality decline of 7.8% and injury decline of 6.5%. The news was less good for light trucks (pickups and SUVs), which lagged with a 2.7% fatality decline and 1.9% injury decline. The news was atrocious for motorcycles which bucked the trend, with a 6.6% increase in fatalities, breaking the 5,000 deaths mark, and a whopping 17% increase in injuries, 15,000 more than the year before, shooting above the 100,000 mark. We are troubled and puzzled by the increased risk to motorcyclists, and will watch with interest for any explanations.

Many factors contributed to the overall safety increase. One likely contributor is the greater availability of cars with Electronic Stability Control – the safety system that helps motorists avoid loss of control by selectively braking or controlling power to individual wheels when a skid is detected. This system is predicted to dramatically decrease the number of accidents as it becomes included in more and more cars. We would not buy a new car without Electronic Stability Control, which is now widely available on a variety of vehicles in every price range. We strongly disapprove of manufacturers that offer ESC only as an extra-cost option. When that happens, dealers tend to not order the vehicles. When ESC is included as standard equipment, as it is in most Honda vehicles for instance, costs can be kept low for the consumer, and the accident danger to all of us is reduced. Other product improvements including elimination of lap-only belts in newer cars, greater availability of side curtain airbags, and more rollover resistant SUV, also likely contributed to the progress in crash injury prevention.

Driver factors also certainly played a role, including strong enforcement of drunk driving laws and graduated drivers licenses that have dramatically improved teen driver accident, death, and injury rates.

One other factor that has certainly contributed to lower death and injury rates: product improvements and safety demand from consumers resulting from product liability lawsuits and the awareness of dangers that they create.

We should applaud our progress as a nation in reducing the toll of the highway crash epidemic, but given the magnitude of the harm – over 41,000 families losing loved ones, and 2.5 million Americans suffering injuries each year – we need to continue to push for greater safety both vehicle design and driver behavior.

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has cautioned motorists that hot summer weather, defective tires, and motor vehicles overloaded with vacationers and cargo make up a deadly combination that can lead to serious auto accidents on US roads and freeways.

One reason the summer heat can create an additional hazard to motor vehicle tires—especially those that are poorly maintained and/or defective—is that the hot weather adds to the temperature buildup of the tire, which can cause the glue that holds it together to stop working until the tire falls apart. Dry air and the sun’s ultraviolet rays have also been known to drastically shorten an already under-inflated or cracked tire’s lifespan.

When a tire blows out and the driver is unable regain control of the vehicle, the car can end up taking a sharp turn or rollover that can result in serious injuries for the motorist and others. The NHTSA says that some 660 people are killed and 33,000 others are injured every year in traffic collisions caused by tire problems. The federal agency also estimates that at least 50 lives could be saved each year and up to 10,600 injuries prevented if steps were taken to properly maintain all tires and keep defective ones off US roads.

There are preventive steps that a motorist can take to properly maintain their tires during the hot summer months:

• Check the tire pressure every month and before going an a long trip.
• Check tires for excessive wear or sidewall deterioration.
• Make sure the tires are properly aligned.
• Rotate your motor vehicle's tires every 3,000-4,000 miles.

Common Causes of Tire Blowouts Include:

• Manufacturing or design defects
• Shredded tires
• Poor tire construction
• Adhesion failures

Unfortunately, tire defects are not uncommon, and some of the biggest tire manufacturers in the world, including Dunlop and Firestone, have recalled defective tires at some point in time. If your injuries occurred in an auto accident involving a defective tire, our auto products liability law firm can help you determine whether you have grounds to file a claim against the tire designer or the motor vehicle manufacturer.

NHTSA Urges Drivers To Check Their Tires During The Hot Weather, NHTSA, August 13, 2007

Desert heat boosts peril of tire blowouts, AZCentral.com, June 18, 2005

Tire Safety, NHTSA

Related Web Resources:

NHTSA

Recalls

Continue reading "Odds of Motor Vehicle Accidents Occurring Due to Tire Blowouts Increase With Rising Summer Heat" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Tires

Bookmark:

There is growing concern that there may be millions of motor vehicles with defective tire valve stems that are currently being driven on US roads. Concern over the hazards associated with defective tire valve stems caught the media spotlight last year, when a Florida man died after the valve stem in one of his tires cracked, causing a rollover crash.

The valve stem believed to have triggered his motor vehicle crash was linked to distributor Dill Air Control Products. The company has since then issued a warning to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that up to 30 million valve stems made by a Shanghai Baolong Industries subsidiary may be out in the US market.

The tire valve stem is the tiny device that keeps the air in a tire. The worry is that the defective tire valve stems could crack prematurely, which could cause the tires to lose air. The loss of tire pressure can then cause the tires to become damaged or underinflated, which may lead to motor vehicle crashes involving serious injuries or deaths.

In June, Tech International, another US parts distributor, announced its voluntary recall of some six million valve stems, also made in China by the same distributor. While only 8,600 of the 6 million recalled stems are believed to be defective, no one knows which motor vehicles were fitted with the defective valve stems.

Safety advocates are encouraging drivers to inspect their valve stems and check the pressure on their tires—especially if they received a replacement tire after July 2006.

If you or someone you love suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicle crash caused by a defective auto part, our experienced auto products liability law firm would like to talk to you.

Fatal Rollover Prompts Probe into Chinese-Made Tire Valve Stems Safety, Reuters.com, June 12, 2008

Tech International Recall, NHTSA

WCBV: Hidden Tire Defect Poses Safety Threat, ABC News, June 24, 2008

Related Web Resources:
Dill Air Controls

Tech International

Procedure to Inspect Snap-In Valve for Cracks, Safety Research.net/Dill Air Controls

Continue reading " Millions of Motor Vehicles in the US Could Have Tires Fitted With Defective Tire Valve Stems" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

At a June 4 hearing before the US Senate, auto safety regulators said they need more time to make sure that adding more headroom and weight to vehicle roofs will not increase the chances of a vehicle rollover. At the center of discussions was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s proposal to update its roof safety standards.

The higher gravity center of pick-up trucks and SUVs is what make these kinds of vehicles more likely to rollover. The NHTSA's current standard, established in 1973, requires that passenger cars withstand a force 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight during a rollover accident. The 2005 proposal would increase that standard to 2.5 times the vehicle weight. Critics, however, believe this is still not enough to increase passenger safety in a rollover crash, and they have been pushing for an even tougher standard—which is why, in January, the NHTSA said it would consider revising its proposal.

Although by law, the NHTSA has until July 1 to revise its roof standard, lawmakers want the update delayed until regulators arrive at the “correct” standard. Some safety advocates, however, say that there is no concrete evidence to indicate that strengthening current roof standards would significantly minimize the number of injuries and deaths in rollover crashes. Rollover deaths make up 25% of all traffic accident fatalities in the United States, and there were over 10,000 rollover deaths in 2007.

The NHTSA proposal also wants to make automakers exempt from state products liability lawsuits if the vehicles involved in the auto accidents met the new roof safety standards. This would prevent injury passengers from being able to sue for compensation for medical costs, lost income, recovery costs, and other damages.

Our defective auto products law firm represents products liability clients that were injured in rollover accidents and other motor vehicle crashes that occurred because a motor vehicle or one of its auto parts was defective. We have helped injury victims all over the United States recover personal injury compensation.

U.S. Lawmakers Question Regulators on Vehicle Roof Strength Rules, Insurance Journal, June 5, 2008

Roof Crush Standard Flawed, Preempts State Efforts, OMBWatch.org, June 10, 2008

Related Web Resources:

IIHS testifies on the relationship of roof strength and injury risk in rollover crashes (PDF)

NHTSA 2005 Roof Crush Proposal

Continue reading "Auto Regulators May Need More Time to Develop Tougher Roof Strength Regulations" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is warning 15-passenger van users to drive safely this summer. New research shows that the number of deadly 15-passenger van rollovers increases between June through August, with 31% of all 15-passenger van rollover accidents occurring during this busy travel period.

While the number of 15-passenger van deaths continues to decline, too many accident fatalities and injuries that are still happening. 58 people died in 15-passenger van accidents in 2006. Just this year, in British Columbia, 8 people died when a 15-passenger van fishtailed and ran into a large truck.

While driver inexperience, driver negligence, and improper maintenance can lead to 15-passenger van accidents, another major problem is the way the 15-passenger vans are designed. The more occupants riding in a 15-passenger van, the more prone it is to becoming involved in a rollover crash because its gravity center moves back and up.

This makes the 15-passenger van harder to control during an emergency situation and means that even if the van is used as intended and designed, with no more than 15 passengers riding the van, occupants are at risk of serious injury or death in the event of a rollover accident or a collision with another motor vehicle.

Placing cargo on top of a 15-passenger van can also increase the risks of a rollover. The NHTSA also has found that 15-passenger vans are more likely to be involved in a single-auto rollover collision than other motor vehicles.

15-passenger van accidents and rollovers can lead to serious injuries, including spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, head injuries, neck injuries, and death. While the US federal government has banned school districts from using 15-passenger vans, there are still many 15-passenger vans driving on US roads.

Our auto products liability law firm represents injury victims and their families throughout the United States with 15-passenger van lawsuits against the vans’ manufacturers.

Nation’s Top Vehicle Safety Official Urges 15-Passenger Van Users to Drive with Caution this Summer, NHTSA.gov, May 12, 2008

Federal probe sought into 15-passenger vans after deadly school trip, CBC.ca, January 15, 2008

Related Web Resource:

Reducing the Risks of Rollover Vans in 15-Passenger Vans, NHTSA.gov

Study Confirms 15-Passenger Van Rollover Risk, Consumer Affairs, May 26, 2005

Continue reading "NHTSA Warning Highlights Dangers of Riding in 15-Passenger Vans" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

Ford Motor Inc. is voluntarily recalling over 655,000 F-150 and Lincoln Mark LT Pickup Trucks following reports of 11 minor accidents. 2005 and 2006 models with 5.4 liter 3-valve engines are affected by the recall.

The automaker wants to repair a hose that could affect a truck’s braking power if the hose were to become swollen and detach from the intake manifold. The driver might then lose the “assist” function that gives the brakes extra power and would have to step on the pedal more forcefully to stop the truck.

Brake Problems
Brake problems can lead to awful consequences for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians, especially when one of the motor vehicles involved is a large, heavy truck. Injuries sustained in a truck accident can be catastrophic and may result in spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, or massive internal injuries.

Examples of other brake problems that can cause serious accidents:

• Defective parking brakes
• Problems with the hydraulic lines
• Damaged brake pads
• Brake failure

If you or someone you love was injured in a truck accident or a car accident that occurred because of a defective auto part, you may be able to hold the auto manufacturer, the car dealership, or the auto maintenance shop financially responsible for your injury accident. Calling attention to the product defect may also get the problem fixed and prevent other people from getting hurt.

Over the years, our products liability law firm has successfully represented many injury victims of defective motor vehicles. We take your automotive products liability case very seriously. We even employ an in-house engineering staff that are experts on vehicle safety and design.

Ford recalls more than 655,000 trucks, CNN.com, May 14, 2008

Ford Recalls Trucks for Faulty Break Hose, NewsInferno.com, May 15, 2008

Related Web Resources:

Recall Information, Ford Motor Co.

Continue reading "Ford Recalls Over 655,000 Lincoln Mark LT and F-150 Pickup Trucks " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that occupant protection provided by midsized cars during side impact collisions is getting better, but passenger protection during rear-end collisions continues to be poor or marginal. The Institute announced its findings after testing a number of midsized cars, including the Chevrolet Malibu, the Nissan Altima, the Dodge Avenger, the Kia Optima, the Infiniti G35, the Mitsubishi Gallant, and the Saturn Aura.

All of the cars earned good ratings for solid passenger protection during frontal accidents. Except for the KIA Optima, they also earned high ratings for side crash protection. The presence of side air bags in all of the cars was one of the main reasons cited for the improved test results—compared to to midsized cars that were tested in 2004.

The only car to test well for rear crashworthiness was the Kia Optima, whose seat/head restraints received top ratings.

Rear-End Collision Safety
If a vehicle moves forward when struck during a rear end collision, its seats can push the occupants’ bodies forward. If a passenger’s head doesn’t have any support, it can fall behind as the torso moves forward and may cause neck injuries. Installing the proper head restraints allows the head and torso to move forward together and minimizes neck injuries, including whiplash.

Neck injuries are the most common injury that occurs during auto accidents. A neck injury can lead to whiplash, nerve damage, disc damage, torn ligaments, headaches, tingling sensation in the arms, and severe pain.

Rear-end collisions, like all other car accidents, can also lead to more catastrophic injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, a broken neck, burn injuries, spinal cord injuries, and wrongful death.

In 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced a new safety standard for head restraints, requiring them to be placed higher and closer to the head. The head restraints must also be adjustable.

If you or someone you love was seriously injured in a car accident because the automobile lacked the proper safety measures or the head restraint, a front or side airbag, or another device or auto part was defective, contact our auto products liability law firm right away to discuss your case. You may be entitled to personal injury compensation.

New crash tests of midsize cars: protection in side impacts improves, but most cars tested still afford marginal or poor protection in rear crashes, IIHS.org, April 10, 2008

NHTSA Announces Upgraded Rule for Head Restraints in Vehicles, NHTSA, December 7, 2004

Related Web Resources:

New Crash Tests of Midsize Cars, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (PDF)

Whiplash Neck Injuries, Head Rests, Head Restraints

Continue reading "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Says Many Midsized Cars Still Do Not Provide Proper Occupant Protection During Rear-End Collisions " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The SUV rollover lawsuit filed against Mitsubishi Motors by the family of TLC Singer Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes will go forward, says the Georgia Court of Appeals. The auto manufacturing giant had tried to have the wrongful death lawsuit dismissed because the company is located abroad and the accident occurred in Honduras.

Lopes died while on vacation in April 2002 in a rollover collision outside the town of La Ceiba. Lopes, 30, was driving the Mitsubishi SUV that rolled over.

Representing the pop star’s family in the case is Attorney Stuart Ollanik, a senior partner at the auto products liability law firm of Gilbert, Ollanik & Komyatte,PC. Mr. Ollanik says that the sport utility vehicle that Lopes was operating was not as resistant to rollovers as it could and should have been—especially because many SUVs that are now being made are “a little lower, just a little bit wider, and with electronic stability." Electronic stability systems can automatically adjust the steering and braking of a motor vehicle so that it doesn’t tip over.

Mr. Ollanik and Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, PC are long-term advocates of improving SUVs. Testing conducted by the law firm show that just lowering the center of gravity of a sport utility vehicle and widening the wheel base can prevent an SUV from rolling over. Many engineers and safety experts agree.

Mitsubishi has denied any wrongdoing related to Lopes’s rollover death.

Our auto products liability law firm is nationally recognized for helping injured clients and their families across the United States recover injury and wrongful death compensation from some of the largest auto manufacturers in the country and the world.

To watch Stuart Ollanik's recent interview with Fox Colorado News please visit: SUV Lawsuit Aimed At Improving Safety, MyFoxColorado.com, March 9, 2008

TLC's Lisa 'Left Eye' Lopes dies in wreck, CNN.com, April 26, 2002

Related Web Resources:

A Few Facts About SUVs and Safety, PBS.org

The Physics of SUV Rollover Accidents

Continue reading "Appeals Court Says SUV Rollover Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi For the 2002 Death of Pop Star Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes Can Go Forward" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is trying to relocate some 35,000 families out of the trailers and mobile homes that the agency had provided after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Results from tests by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention confirm that there are dangerous levels of formaldehyde fumes in many of the trailers.

Formaldehyde is an airborne chemical and a preservative commonly found in construction materials. Exposure to too much formaldehyde can lead to breathing problems and possibly even cancer. The toxin can be found in construction materials, such as composite wood and plywood panels, which were used in the thousands of FEMA trailers.

The CDC test results is not the first time that there has been an indication that the FEMA trailers and mobile homes may have been causing health problems for its residents. A number of people living in the homes have complained of different health issues, such as headaches, asthma, sinus problems, respiratory distress, nosebleeds, and runny noses.

As early as last April, the Sierra Club tested FEMA trailers and found formaldehyde concentrations up to .34 parts per million in many of them—an excessively high amount. Even after these test results, FEMA maintained that the toxic problem was isolated to only a handful of trailers and that the mobile homes were generally safe for use. FEMA had suggested that improving ventilation by airing out the trailers would help.

There are over 35,000 FEMA trailers and mobile homes in Louisiana, Mississippi, and other states. Over 144,000 mobile homes and trailers have housed Katrina victims at some point.

The CDC says it has not found a direct connection between the toxin and the different illnesses and symptoms that the occupants in the trailers have reported, but it is recommending that trailer residents move out as soon as possible.

The trailers were manufactured quickly to accommodate all the Katrina victims. Residents have also complained that the trailers and homes are cramped and poorly made.

Toxic FEMA Trailer Cases
Our products liability law firm has successfully dealt with many injury cases throughout the United States involving all kinds of defective motor vehicles, as well as injury and death cases brought about from exposure to hazardous toxins and wastes. One of our Toxic FEMA Trailer Lawyers would be happy to speak with you during a free consultation.

FEMA slammed for using toxic trailers, MercuryNews.com, February 15, 2008

FEMA to step up efforts to move hurricane victims from toxic trailers, Baltimore Sun/Associated Press, February 14, 2008

Related Web Resources:

FEMA Trailer Study, CDC

Sierra Club Action Confirms FEMA Inaction On Gulf Coast, Sierra Club, July 23, 2007

FEMA

Continue reading "FEMA Moving 35,000 Hurricane Katrina Families Out of Toxic Trailers " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , FEMA Trailers , Toxic Chemicals , Toxic Injuries or Disease , Toxic Tort/Environmental Cases

Bookmark:

Ford Motor Co. announced two separate recalls on Monday that affect over 180,000 vans and sports utility vehicles.

The larger recall affects almost 124,000 2007-2008 Lincoln Navigator SUVs and Ford Expeditions. Ford says that the spring system located inside the side door handles might break and prevent the door from closing properly or cause it to open unexpectedly during a side collision. The Michigan-based auto manufacturer plans to replace the interior side door handles.

Ford’s second recall involves 57,000 2007 Navigator and Expedition SUVs and 2006-2007 E-150, E-250 and E-350 vans. Ford says the vehicles’ fuel rail crossover hose could crack, leak fuel, and cause a fire.

The auto manufacturing giant has already recalled over 10 million motor vehicles because of fire hazard concerns. No incidents related to this recall have been reported so far.

There have, however, been two separate fire incidents involving 2007 Chevrolet SUV’s. This week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration officially opened an investigation into whether the 2007 Chevrolet SUVs are susceptible to catching fire. Chervrolet SUVs are made by General Motors.

The formal probe follows two separate incidents where an SUV ignited while the engine was turned off. Both incidents took place while the SUVs were parked in home garages. Two people were injured in one fire, and a great deal of property damage occurred during both incidents.

At this time, the source of the two fires has not been determined-although the engine, battery, wiring, and engine cooling are possible sources.

Some 400,000 motor vehicles are part of the investigation. The NHTSA will take a look at both the Tahoe and the GMC Yukon.

Our motor vehicle fire attorneys have helped many injured clients recover compensation from some of the country’s largest auto manufacturers because their motor vehicles ignited due to a product defect. Visit the Automotives Product Liability: Fires section of our Web site for more information.

Ford Recalls 180,000 Vehicles, Foxbusiness.com, February 11, 2008

US investigates reports of fires in Chevy Tahoes, Reuters, February 11, 2008

Feds Probe Fire Complaints in Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon, Consumer Affairs, February 9, 2008

Related Web Resources:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

General Motors

Ford Motors

Continue reading "Ford Recall and GM Chevrolet Fire Incidents Rekindle Fire Hazard Concerns " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Fires

Bookmark:

In Florida, a Maine couple is suing Mitsubishi Motors for the death of their son. Donna and Peter Laliberte are accusing the auto manufacturing giant of covering up defect flaws in its Montero Sport line, which resulted in the tragic death of 25-year-old Scott Laliberte.

Laliberte was killed while riding in a 2000 Montero Sport in September 2004 on Interstate 95 in Brevard County, Florida. His friend had been driving the SUV when the single-vehicle rollover accident occurred. Laliberte’s parents allege in their lawsuit that their son was partially ejected from the motor vehicle during the rollover accident because the seat recliner mechanism and seat belt both had inherent flaws.

Halfway through the 2000 model year, Mitsubishi had introduced a new 2000 Montero Sport. The automaker wanted to fix certain flaws detected during crash tests. Mitsubishi, however, did not report the flaws.

Mitsubishi’s reputation took a beating that year after admitting it had spent decades covering up auto defects and try to secretly repair the problems without issuing recalls. Dozens of motor vehicle accidents occurred because of these defects.

The manufacturer giant admits that it incorporated a 10-inch loop into the seat belt of the newer 2000 Montero Sport to better protect passengers because the original stitching came loose during a crash test. Mitsubishi, however, maintains that the original 2000 Montero Sport did not have problems with the seat or seat belt.

Seatbelts—when used and used correctly—can save lives. However, a seat belt system that is poorly made or defective can sometimes be the difference between life and death for the person using the flawed seatbelt. Thousands of people die every year because an auto manufacturer did not fulfill its obligation to consumers by designing a seat belt system that works.

Common Seat Belt Defects Include:

Torn or Ripped Webbing: A flaw in the webbing of the seat belt allows it to rip apart during an accident.

Inertial Unlatching: A problem with the latch plate of the seat belt causes it to become unlatched during an accident

Retractor Failure: A problem with the belt’s retractor design or during manufacturing prevents it from locking and properly securing the passenger.

Visit the Defective Seatbelt and Restraint System Cases section of our Web site for a list of more seat belt defects.

For over 20 years, our products liability law firm has represented many families and individuals in products liability lawsuits against some of the biggest car manufactures in the world.

Couple takes on carmaker in death of son, Palmbeachpost.com, February 4, 2008

Related Web Resources:

SafetyForum

Mitsubishi Motors

Continue reading " Products Liability Lawsuit Claims Mitsubishi Covered Up Design Flaws that Caused Wrongful Death " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Defective Seatbelt and Restraint System Cases

Bookmark: