Product Liability Law Blog

The parents of a 4-month-old girl who died after she became entrapped in her portable baby recliner is seeking $75K in Michigan products liability damages from manufacturer Baby Matters LLC. The baby, Juliette Thiel, died on July 9, 2010 from asphyxiation.

The infant was found hanging from the Nap Nanny's side while her face had gotten caught between the recliner and the crib bumper. In their Michigan wrongful death complaint, Brian and Mako Thiel accused the manufacturer of failing to make sure there were proper warning labels that came with the infant recliner cautioning against suffocation injuries.

Following Juliette's fatal accident, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 30,000 Nap Nanny recliners. The federal safety agency said the recliners posed fall, entrapment, and suffocation hazards. CPSC and Baby Matters also reported that there had been least one other known incident of a an infant entrapment accident happening while the Nap Nanny was being used in crib. That baby, who fell over the recliner's side, got caught between the Nap Nanny and the crib's side and sustained a head cut. Additionally, 22 reports involving harnessed infants falling out of or hanging over the Nap Nanny's side were filed.

In their Michigan child products liability lawsuit, the Thiels are contending that not only are there two patents indicating that the Nap Nanny was made to be used in a crib, but also, product marketing materials prior to March 2010 promote that the child recliner be used this way. The CPSC has since advised that the Nap Nanny not be used inside a crib, play yard, or another confined space. Placing the Nap Nanny on an elevated surface is also not recommended because the baby might fall out.

The Thiels say that as early as March 2010, the CPSC told Baby Matters it was looking into whether the Nap Nanny had defects. At the time, the manufacturer said denied this. However, the couple says that in May 2010, the CPSC found that the Nap Nanny was defective, came with a harness that did not properly restrain infants or keep them secure, and if used in a crib placed the baby at risk of becoming entrapped and suffocating. Warning labels and directions also were found inadequate. Juliette died two months later. Her parents are seeking over $75,000 in Michigan wrongful death damages.

Manufacturers are supposed to warn of any safety risks that come with using a product. This includes making sure that a product comes with the appropriate warning labels and operating instructions. It would be even better if products did not have any design defects that made them dangerous for children and infants to use--especially while they are asleep and unsupervised.

Couple sues firm in death of infant, The Detroit News, November 19, 2011

Baby Matters Recalls Nap Nanny® Recliners Due to Entrapment, Suffocation and Fall Hazards; One Infant Death Reported, CPSC, July 26, 2010

More Blog Posts:
New Crib Safety Standards Go Into Effect Today, Product Liability Law Blog, June 28, 2011

Choking, Entrapment, Fall, and Suffocation Hazards Prompt CPSC's Latest Recalls Involving Children and Infant Products, Product Liability Law Blog, April 5, 2011

22,000 Dream on Me Drop-Side Cribs Recalled Because They Pose Laceration, Entrapment, Suffocation, and Fall Hazards, Product Liability Law Blog, May 24, 2011

Wendell Keetch and the family and estate of Bettie Nelson and are suing Chrysler Group, LLC for Texas auto products liability and wrongful death. Nelson, 80, died last February when a 2006 Dodge Durango crashed into the home of Keetch, who sustained life-threatening injuries.

According to police, the SUV, which was driven by Fidel Flores, ran a stop sign and rammed through a brick wall before striking Keetch's home. Per the plaintiffs, they believe "unintended acceleration" caused the Texas auto defect accident. They contend that the automaker either knew or should have known that the Dodge Durango had an auto defect that made it a dangerous vehicle.

Alleged auto defects include a poor fault detection system that could not anticipated unintended acceleration, electromagnetic interference, and short circuiting, defective electronic systems and parts that were at risk of malfunctioning, and lack of a brake override/fail-safe device to stop/prevent sudden acceleration (even though other manufacturers had used an alternate design that could do this). The plaintiffs believe that Chrysler was negligent in the manufacture, design, sale, and marketing of the 2006 Durango and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the deadly Texas accident. Negligence allegedly included failure to properly test the vehicle and failure to do enough to protect users and vehicle occupants. The surviving family members and Keetch say that Chrysler either knew or should have known that the vehicle was defective.

The Texas defective auto part lawsuit seeks damages for Nelson's terror, mental anguish, and physical pain prior to her death, as well as burial and funeral costs. Damages are also being sought on behalf of Janith Glazner, who is Nelson's daughter. Glazner is claiming loss of companionship, consortium, and inheritance, and mental anguish. Her brother, James Richard Nelson, is seeking similar damages. Keetch, who sustained permanent and severe injuries is seeking damages for future and past necessary and reasonable medical bills, his physical impairments and mental pain, and the diminishment of his ability to enjoy life.

Meantime, the authorities recently said that they would not charge Flores, because there was not enough evidence indicating whether the driver or an auto defect caused the deadly crash. He, too, also died from the injuries he sustained in the car accident.

When seeking damages for auto products liability against a car manufacturer, you want to work with an auto defects law firm that has the experience, resources, and knowledge to successfully pursue your recovery. Going up against an automaker can be tough and you want to make sure that you retain someone that won't be intimidated by this fact and has a record of success.

Read the Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Parents File Texas Auto Products Liability Lawsuit Against General Motors Over Teenager's SUV Rollover Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, September 7, 2011

Texas Playground Accident Lawsuit Seeks Damages from McDonald's Chain Owners, Product Liability Law Blog, July 29, 2011

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

In a unanimous vote, members of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission have approved a new federal safety rule for children's outerwear. Per the final rule, kids' upper outerwear, sizes 2T through 16 with certain bottom or waist drawstrings and those with hood or neck drawstrings in sizes 2T through 12 possess substantial product hazards that could lead to serious injuries to children. If your child got hurt or died because he or she got entangled in or was strangled while wearing clothing with drawstring, please contact our child products liability law firm today.

The CPSC says it has received 26 reports over kids dying because a clothing drawstring got caught on a school bus door, playground slide, or another object, resulting in dragging incidents, entrapment, and/or strangulation. Serious injury or death can also result if a drawstring was to wrap too tightly around a child's neck. A drawstring that has an object attached to it can also pose a choking hazard if the piece was to come off and the child was to swallow it.

It was in 1996 that the CPSC set up industry guidelines for kids' clothing in regards to drawstrings. The guidelines proved effective in that they've decreased the number of child deaths from hood and neck drawstrings by 75%, while deaths from bottom or waist drawstrings have gone down 100%. In 2006, the CPSC's Office of Compliance said that any kids' upper outerwear with neck or hood drawstrings would be considered a defective product that posed a substantial child injury risk and therefore subject to recall. In 2008, our child injury law firm reported in one of our blog posts that between April 2007 and May 2008 over 18 recalls involving over 19,000 units of clothing with drawstrings was announced.

Recently, Macy's agreed to pay a $750,000 penalty for not reporting drawstrings in kids' outerwear. Federal law requires distributors, manufacturers, and retailers notify the CPSC of a product that is a serious injury or death hazard within 24 hours of discovering the possible defect. The penalty against Macy's resolves allegations that the department store chain did not obey the law and immediately tell the CPSC that it sold children's sweaters, sweatshirts, and jackets with neck drawstrings between 2007 and 2010 and that these posed a child strangulation and death hazard. The defective clothing was sold not just at Macy's stores, but also at Robinsons-May and Bloomingdale's. Some of the clothes were allegedly sold even after they were recalled.

Macy's Agrees to Pay $750,000 Civil Penalty for Failing to Report Drawstrings in Children's Outerwear, CPSC, July 11, 2011

CPSC Issues New Drawstring Safety Rule for Children's Outerwear
Drawstrings at Neck and Waist Present Strangulation Hazard and Other Dangers, CPSC, July 1, 2011

Safety group sets kids' drawstring safety rules, MSNBC/Reuters, July 1, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Read the CPSC's Drawstring Guidelines from 1996 (PDF)

Recalls.Gov

More Blog Posts:
Strangulation, Choking, and Fall Hazards Prompt Recall of Baby Walkers, Clothing, and Books, Product Liability Law Blog, April 17, 2010

Defective Clothing Can Cause Serious Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, June 18, 2008

Retailers Pay $320,000 Fine For Selling Defective Children's Clothing With Drawstrings, Product Liability Law Blog, May 13, 2008

Continue reading "CPSC Says Certain Kids' Outerwear with Drawstrings Pose Strangulation, Entrapment and Death Hazard to Kids" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resource:
Toyota Motor Corporation

Safercar.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Other Seat Belt Defects:

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


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


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


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

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

Related Web Resources:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Car Reviews and Ratings, Consumer Reports

Motor Vehicle Recalls, Safercar.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
Safety Recalls, Safercar.org

Ford Motor Company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
Toyota

NHTSA

Safercar.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
aferCar.gov

Before you buy an SUV, PBS

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

Ford SUV Rollover Lawsuit: Jury Awards Baseball Player's Family $131 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, February 4, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The family of Sandra Dozier is suing TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. over her Texas wrongful death. They claim that the defendant designed and made a very dangerous restraint system.

Dozier was driving a 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix on March 13, 2007 when she lost control of the vehicle and it rolled over. She suffered fatal injuries despite wearing a seat belt.

Per the seat belt defect lawsuit, the buckle provided inadequate restraint, violates both the principals of crashworthiness and GM's internal specifications, and does not comply with legal statutes. The plaintiffs want wrongful death compensation for loss of care, support, maintenance, advice, service, counsel, companionship and society, pecuniary contributions, and inheritance. They also want financial recovery for their mental anguish, emotional distress, funeral and medical costs, interest, and court expenses.

Defective Seat Belts
It is imperative that passengers wear seat belts that are free from defects. Use of a seat belt can save a life during a car crash or prevent catastrophic injuries. Unfortunately, not all safety belts are free from design and manufacturing defects. Not only do seat belt safety issues increase the chances of injury or death during auto collision impact, but also the defect itself can also be a cause of injury.

Common seat belt defects:
False latching: The latch plate appears, looks, and sounds as if it is latched, but it isn't. This means the wearer is not properly restrained.

Inertial latching: The seat belt becomes unlatched during a traffic crash.

Ripped or torn webbing: The safety belt rips or tears apart during a crash.

"Windowshade" devices: The presence of this "tension-relieving" device in a seat belt can create unnecessary slack that can reduce the seat belt's ability to properly restrain a passenger during a collision.

Lap-only belt designs: These do not provide adequate protection.

Some signs that seat belt failure may have been a factor in causing passenger injury:

• The belted occupant sustained injuries.


• The car crash victim was using a seat belt that fit him/her loosely.


• A vehicle occupant is found without a seat belt on even though he/she was using one.


• The occupant suffered serious injuries while wearing a seat belt even though the vehicle sustained limited structural damage.


• A passenger wearing a seat belt sustained serious injuries during a moderate or minor crash.

Seatbelt manufacturer sued after fatal car accident, The Southeast Texas Record, January 19, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Occupant Protection, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Hidden Dangers of Seat Belts , Time, November 30, 2006

Seat Belts, Product Liability Law Blog

The family of Rosland Watson is suing Toyota, the Grandview Auto Wash, and the driver of the vehicle that struck her for Missouri wrongful death. Watson, 40, suffered fatal injuries on November 5, 2009 when a 2002 Toyota Land Cruiser that was leaving a car wash bay hit her. At the time, she was seated on a bench in the waiting area, while her own car was being cleaned.

Watson sustained head trauma, injuries to her abdomen, neck, throat, broke, ribs and pubic bone, and developed lacerations, abrasions, and contusions on her arms, neck, lungs, legs, liver, intestines, spleen, stomach, and bladder. She later died at the hospital.

According to the driver of the Toyota, John Page, his accelerator got stuck. A police probe, however, found that Page had stepped on the accelerator and not the brakes.

The plaintiffs claim that Toyota should be held liable for Missouri auto products liability because it has knowingly made cars with defective braking and acceleration systems that have caused "eerily similar" accidents to the one that killed Watson. They believe that she would still be alive today if only Toyota had sought to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration problem that has affected so many of its vehicles, causing serious injuries and deaths.

In their wrongful death lawsuit, the family accused Toyota of fraudulently covering up information related to the acceleration defect. They says that after the car accident that killed Watson, the automaker sent two corporate representatives to "inspect" the Land Cruiser and, rather than attempting to discover the truth, "staged an inspection" to "clear its name." The plaintiffs say that the Toyota SUV was defectively designed and manufactured because it contained a faulty throttle control system, poorly designed floor mats, an "unreasonably dangerous gas pedal," and an electronic interference issues that caused unintended acceleration. The vehicle also lacked a brake override system.

Read the Lawsuit (PDF)

Toyota, Cleaver-owned car wash sued in woman's death, NBC Action News, January 20, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Toyota Safety Issues, Product Liability Law Blog

Additional Information on Toyota Recalls and Investigations, NHTSA

Once again, the Nevada Supreme Court has rejected attempts by Goodyear to overturn a $32.2 million defective tire verdict against it in the wrongful case filed by the surviving family members of three people killed in a 2004 Utah 15-passenger van crash. The plaintiffs have said that the deadly auto accident was caused by a tire blowout that caused the vehicle to overturn on I-70.

Killed in the Utah rollover accident were Andres Torres, Evangelina Tapia, and Frank Enriquez. Seven other people were injured in the collision. Last year, the state's highest court upheld the $32.2 million Nevada wrongful death lawsuit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Other defendants in the products liability case, Valley View Hitch and Truck Rental and Ford Motor Co., settled their auto products liability lawsuits prior to the civil trial.

Following the judgment, Goodyear then sought to argue that it was not given due process. A district judge had taken away Goodyear's ability to defend itself against the civil complaint after finding that its attorneys took part in stall tactics and acted in bad faith. Without hearing the facts of the case, the jury was told to determine damages. Now, the Nevada Supreme Court is refusing to review its earlier decision to uphold the jury's tire blowout judgment.

Goodyear Defective Tire Lawsuits
Goodyear is also the defendant in other tire tread separation complaints related to its Load Range "E" tires that are used on pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans. Dozens of defective tire lawsuits have been reportedly filed over these Goodyear tires, which were manufactured between 1991 and 2000. According to ABC News, 15,000 of these tires experienced tread separation between 1991 and 2001 alone. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says there were reports of 87 auto crashes involving these tires during this time period, with 50% of the collisions causing at least 158 injuries and 18 deaths.

Tread Separation
Tread separation is a common cause of tire blowouts and rollovers. Vehicles with high gravity centers, such as SUVs, and 15-passenger vans, are at high risk of rolling over in the event that tread separation should cause a driver to lose control of the auto. Tire manufacturing and design defects are two common causes of tread separation.

$30 million verdict: Nevada Supreme Court denies Goodyear's petition for rehearing, LV Legal News, December 31, 2010

Goodyear Tires Draw Lawsuits, No Recall, Good Morning America/ABC News, May 19, 2010

$32 Million Defective Tire Judgment Against Goodyear Upheld, Product Liability Law Blog, July 10, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Goodyear Tires

Tire Defects, SaferCars.gov

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ford Motor Co. is expanding its recall of 575,000 Windstar vehicles to include another 37,000 minivans. According to the Associated Press, the expansion of the recall comes after the family of Sean Bowman complained that the automaker didn't do enough warn about the initial recall, which involved older Windstars and concerns that the vans' rear axles might corrode and break.

Bowman, 28 was killed in a single-vehicle crash last October when he lost control of his 2001 Ford WIndstar and rammed into the side of a building. Critically injured in the accident was his girlfriend. Bowman leaves behind two young daughters, ages 4 and 7. His family says that they did not receive a safety recall notice from Ford until one week after the tragic traffic collision and more than six weeks after the recall was announced in August. They are considering filing a Massachusetts auto products liability lawsuit against Ford over his wrongful death.

Federal law requires car manufacturers let vehicle owners know about a recall "within a reasonable amount of time." Usually, owners are notified about a recall within 30 days.

While the original recall affected 1998 to 2003 model Windstars in certain US states and Canada, where heavy road salt can cause rust to appear on the axles and crack-related corrosions to cause axle breakage, the expanded recall adds 2003 Windstars that come with heat-treated axles, as well as vans in Utah where road salt is used. Ford says that its latest figures show that as of September, there have been at least seven accidents linked to the axle defect that have resulted in injuries—although the automaker says that none of the injuries are serious. It has received some 950 complaints about the axles.

Ford says that it has been looking through state motor vehicle registration databases to search for WIndstar owners affected by the recall. Notifications of the expanded recall started to go out last week.

Minivan recall grows as victim's family speaks out, Forbes, December 15, 2010

Minivan Recall Grows As Victim's Family Speaks Out, NPR/AP, December 15, 2010

Whitman, Mass. police investigate deadly car crash into building, NECN, October 15, 2010

Related Web Resource:
Ford Motor Company

The family of Ernest Codelia Jr. is suing Toyota for his wrongful death. In their New York auto products liability complaint, they blame Lexus sedan's keyless ignition for his carbon monoxide death. The 79-year-old attorney's companion, Mary Rivera, sustained brain damage from the CO poisoning.

On February 27, 2009, Rivera parked the vehicle in the garage attached to the home that she shared with Codelia. The following day, family members discovered her unconscious on the bedroom floor, while Codelia was found dead in bed.

Autopsy results indicate that he had carbon monoxide in his system. While Rivera survived the CO poisoning, she has a hard time speaking and cannot walk.

In the wrongful death complaint, the family contends that Toyota neglected to install a "Shutdown" switch on the Lexus vehicle that could turn off the ignition when the car has been left untouched or unoccupied after a certain amount of time and that this auto design defect contributed to Codelia's CO poisoning death.

This is not the first time that a Lexus car has been named as a possible cause of a carbon monoxide death. Chasity Sunshine Lee Glisson, a 29-year-old Florida woman, died from CO poisoning at her home last August. She, too, had a keyless Lexus in her garage (although when detectives found the 2006 vehicle, it was not running). Her boyfriend Timothy Maddock, also ended up in intensive care because of the CO exposure.

According to auto safety experts, there isn't enough data to determine whether more people are leaving their vehicles running because of the keyless technology now offered by many vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that about 147 carbon monoxide poisonings occur annually—although it is unclear what role keyless ignition has played.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
CO poisoning is a leading cause of accidental poisoning deaths. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas. Most victims never knew what hit them. Prolonged exposure to CO can cause brain damage and death.

Toyota sued in carbon monoxide tragedy that killed 79-year-old lawyer, NY Daily News, November 7, 2010

One dead, one in the hospital for carbon monoxide poisoning in Boca, CBS12.com, August 28, 2010

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, eMedicineHealth

Related Web Resources:
Toyota Safety Issues, Product Liability Law Blog

The family of Jennifer Leanne Walton is suing Chrysler and R & J Tire Company for her wrongful death. Walton, 20, died on October 3, 2010 in a 15-passenger van rollover accident in Georgia. A the time, the Tabernacle of Prayer and Deliverance church van was transporting 19 people to a revival. Police say that a tire blowout caused the driver to lose control of the vehicle, which struck a median before rolling over at least twice. 4 people were killed while the other 15 sustained injuries.

In their auto products liability lawsuit seeking damages for Walton's wrongful death, her family says the defendants failed to warn users about their products and were responsible for the unsafe condition of the van and its tires.

Following this catastrophic traffic crash, and another 15-passenger van accident in New York that killed 6 people last month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reissued its warning to van owners and operators and offered several steps that they can take to keep passengers safe, including:

• Ensuring that the van is properly maintained.
• Only allowing drivers that are fully trained and experienced to drive the van.
• NOT overloading the van
• Using tires that are the correct size for this type of vehicle.
• Making sure the tires are properly inflated anytime you go on a trip.
• Making sure that everyone in the van is using a seat belt.

Because 15-passenger vans have a higher rollover risk than most motor vehicles, critics and safety advocates have long questioned the way these vehicles are designed. Many of them don't have the basic safety vehicles that other cars have to protect passengers during a traffic collision.

Design defects, manufacturing flaws, and auto parts malfunctions can be grounds for an auto products liability lawsuit if they cause personal injuries or wrongful death.

Lawsuit filed in Van Crash, WRLB, October 22, 2010

Consumer Advisory: NHTSA Reissues 15-Passenger Van Safety Caution, NHTSA, October 14, 2010

Update: Nurse describes van crash scene: 'Bodies everywhere', Ledger-Enquirer, October 4, 2010

Six Killed in Crash on New York State Thruway, New York Times, September 18, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Q&As: 15-passenger vans, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

15 Passenger Vans: Still Dangerous After All These Years, Safety Research, September 21, 2010