Product Liability Lawsuits Credited with Many Safety Improvements
The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday on the history of automotive product liability litigation. Tracing the beginnings of the story to the legendary and precedent setting case of McPherson v. Buick Motor Company in 1911, the Times writes that
“lawsuits over the last half-century are credited with such innovations as impact absorbing dashboards and steering columns, and gas tanks that won’t explode on impact.”
The article debunks the right-wing “tort reform” claims, showing the vast safety improvements resulting from product liability cases.
Read the entire L.A. Times Story
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Ex-Toyota Lawyer says Toyota hid damaging documents from victims of unsafe vehicles
Ex-Toyota lawyer says documents prove company hid damaging information - see the story on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/10/toyota.whistleblower/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/10/toyota.whistleblower/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration Problems
State Farm Says It Warned Gov't On Toyota
Nation's Largest Auto Insurer Says It Reported Acceleration Problems
KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writer
POSTED: 8:29 am EST February 9, 2010UPDATED: 9:59 am EST February 9, 2010
Email Print
Comments
(0)
WASHINGTON --
The nation's largest auto insurer said Tuesday it alerted federal safety regulators in late 2007 about a rise in reports of unexpected acceleration in Toyota vehicles, the latest warning sign to emerge about the massive recall.
State Farm insurance said it noticed an uptick in reports of unwanted acceleration in Toyotas from its large customer database and warned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in late 2007. NHTSA officials said the report was reviewed and the agency issued a recall later that month.
NHTSA received complaints about acceleration problems in Toyota vehicles as early as 2003, and congressional investigators are looking into whether the government missed warning signs of the problems. A House committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Wednesday into the Japanese automaker's recall of about 8.5 million vehicles globally over floor mats which can trap gas pedals, sticking gas pedals and brake problems.
Toyota announced early Tuesday it would recall about 437,000 Prius and other hybrid vehicles to fix brake problems. There have been about 200 complaints in Japan and the U.S. about a delay when the brakes in the Prius were pressed in cold conditions and on some bumpy roads.
The U.S. government has launched an investigation into the Prius. In a statement, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Toyota has acknowledged a safety defect by issuing the Prius recall, which includes 133,000 Prius cars and 14,500 Lexus HS250h vehicles in the United States.
LaHood said Toyota leaders had assured him they were taking the safety concerns "very seriously" and the transportation agency will "remain in constant communication with Toyota to hold them to that promise." U.S. owners will start receiving letters about the recall next week.
State Farm, meanwhile, said it routinely tracks claim trend information and shares its data with NHTSA. "In the name of safety, we voluntarily and routinely communicate with the appropriate government agencies when we see a product-related claim trend," said spokesman Jeff McCollum in an e-mail.
NHTSA spokeswoman Karen Aldana said State Farm forwarded the agency a Sept. 7, 2007, claim letter to Toyota concerning a crash involving a 2005 Camry. She said the report was reviewed and added to their complaint database.
The agency had been investigating problems with floor mats in Toyota vehicles and later in September 2007, Toyota recalled 55,000 Camry and ES350 vehicles to replace the floor mats.
Toyota officials have apologized for the recalls and vowed to fix customer vehicles. Akio Toyoda, the company's president and grandson of its founder, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Tuesday that Toyota "has not lived up to the high standards you have come to expect of us" and called the recent spate of problems "the most serious" the company has ever faced.
"We fully understand that we need to more aggressively investigate complaints we hear directly from consumers and move more quickly to address any safety issues we identify," Toyoda wrote.
Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFpbG40ZnQzBF9TAzM5ODMwMTA0MQRnc3RhdGUDMwRwb3MDNgRzZWMDbndfbG9jYWwEc2xrA3RpdGxl/SIG=14uj07fr1/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Orlando/WESH_2_Orlando/SIG=122pln7qe/**http%253A%252F%252Fwww.wesh.com%252Fautomotive%252F22508036%252Fdetail.html
Nation's Largest Auto Insurer Says It Reported Acceleration Problems
KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writer
POSTED: 8:29 am EST February 9, 2010UPDATED: 9:59 am EST February 9, 2010
Email Print
Comments
(0)
WASHINGTON --
The nation's largest auto insurer said Tuesday it alerted federal safety regulators in late 2007 about a rise in reports of unexpected acceleration in Toyota vehicles, the latest warning sign to emerge about the massive recall.
State Farm insurance said it noticed an uptick in reports of unwanted acceleration in Toyotas from its large customer database and warned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in late 2007. NHTSA officials said the report was reviewed and the agency issued a recall later that month.
NHTSA received complaints about acceleration problems in Toyota vehicles as early as 2003, and congressional investigators are looking into whether the government missed warning signs of the problems. A House committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Wednesday into the Japanese automaker's recall of about 8.5 million vehicles globally over floor mats which can trap gas pedals, sticking gas pedals and brake problems.
Toyota announced early Tuesday it would recall about 437,000 Prius and other hybrid vehicles to fix brake problems. There have been about 200 complaints in Japan and the U.S. about a delay when the brakes in the Prius were pressed in cold conditions and on some bumpy roads.
The U.S. government has launched an investigation into the Prius. In a statement, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Toyota has acknowledged a safety defect by issuing the Prius recall, which includes 133,000 Prius cars and 14,500 Lexus HS250h vehicles in the United States.
LaHood said Toyota leaders had assured him they were taking the safety concerns "very seriously" and the transportation agency will "remain in constant communication with Toyota to hold them to that promise." U.S. owners will start receiving letters about the recall next week.
State Farm, meanwhile, said it routinely tracks claim trend information and shares its data with NHTSA. "In the name of safety, we voluntarily and routinely communicate with the appropriate government agencies when we see a product-related claim trend," said spokesman Jeff McCollum in an e-mail.
NHTSA spokeswoman Karen Aldana said State Farm forwarded the agency a Sept. 7, 2007, claim letter to Toyota concerning a crash involving a 2005 Camry. She said the report was reviewed and added to their complaint database.
The agency had been investigating problems with floor mats in Toyota vehicles and later in September 2007, Toyota recalled 55,000 Camry and ES350 vehicles to replace the floor mats.
Toyota officials have apologized for the recalls and vowed to fix customer vehicles. Akio Toyoda, the company's president and grandson of its founder, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Tuesday that Toyota "has not lived up to the high standards you have come to expect of us" and called the recent spate of problems "the most serious" the company has ever faced.
"We fully understand that we need to more aggressively investigate complaints we hear directly from consumers and move more quickly to address any safety issues we identify," Toyoda wrote.
Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFpbG40ZnQzBF9TAzM5ODMwMTA0MQRnc3RhdGUDMwRwb3MDNgRzZWMDbndfbG9jYWwEc2xrA3RpdGxl/SIG=14uj07fr1/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Orlando/WESH_2_Orlando/SIG=122pln7qe/**http%253A%252F%252Fwww.wesh.com%252Fautomotive%252F22508036%252Fdetail.html
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Taxi Cab Defective Fuel System
AUTO PRODUCTS LIABILITY SETTLEMENT
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire recently settled a case on behalf of a severely burned client involving the defective design and modification of a handicap accessible minivan. Our client, who was a taxi driver, was driving the modified handicap accessible minivan taxi to the airport when it suddenly burst into flames. Plaintiff alleged that the design of the modified taxicab’s fuel system was dangerous and posed the risk of a fuel leak and fire because of the location of the fuel tank, the fuel filler pipe that brings the gas from the gas cap to the fuel tank, and the fuel delivery lines which bring the gas from the fuel tank to the engine. The modifications to the minivan were made by several conversion companies who put little thought into the design and modifications to the fuel system, which creates the risk of a fuel leak and fire. One gallon of gasoline is the equivalent of eight sticks of dynamite and all possible steps must be taken to protect and keep the gasoline within the vehicle’s fuel system.
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire recently settled a case on behalf of a severely burned client involving the defective design and modification of a handicap accessible minivan. Our client, who was a taxi driver, was driving the modified handicap accessible minivan taxi to the airport when it suddenly burst into flames. Plaintiff alleged that the design of the modified taxicab’s fuel system was dangerous and posed the risk of a fuel leak and fire because of the location of the fuel tank, the fuel filler pipe that brings the gas from the gas cap to the fuel tank, and the fuel delivery lines which bring the gas from the fuel tank to the engine. The modifications to the minivan were made by several conversion companies who put little thought into the design and modifications to the fuel system, which creates the risk of a fuel leak and fire. One gallon of gasoline is the equivalent of eight sticks of dynamite and all possible steps must be taken to protect and keep the gasoline within the vehicle’s fuel system.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Automobile Defect - Seat Failure
AUTO PRODUCTS LIABILITY – CRASHWORTNINESS SETTLEMENT
Seatback Failure – 2002 Ford Explorer
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire recently settled a case against the Ford Motor Company involving the defective design of a driver’s seat in a Ford Explorer. The Ford Explorer was rear ended, the driver who was wearing his seatbelt was projected into the rear seat when the driver’s seat back collapsed rearward. The Explorer continued off to the side of the road, subsequently striking the guardrail. The driver was again projected forward into the seatbelt where he sustained a severe injury to his liver. Plaintiff alleged that the design of the Explorer seat was too weak, allowing it to collapse rearward. In a rear impact the only protection that an occupant has is the seat back and head rest behind him and the design of the seat should be strong enough to maintain the occupant upright within the safe confines of the seat. This case has been one of several “seat back failure cases” or cases involving the driver’s or passenger’s seat collapsing rearward in a rear impact, that Atlee, Hall & Brookhart has successfully handled against all of the big three American automobile manufacturers on behalf of its catastrophically injured clients. The seat is an occupant restraint and should not collapse rearward in a rear impact. Much like a seatbelt prevents an occupant from moving forward in a frontal collision, the seat should perform the same function in a rear collision and prevent the occupant from striking the interior of the vehicle. Unfortunately, many of the front seats in automobiles, on America’s highways, are not up to the task of protecting people in rear impacts. When a seat back collapses, the occupant may slide out from under the seatbelt, up the seatback and into the rear seat where they can strike their head and spine, resulting in significant brain injury, paralysis or death. If there is a child seated in the rear seat, collapse of the seatback can result in disastrous occupant-to-occupant contact between the child and the front seat occupant.
Seatback Failure – 2002 Ford Explorer
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire recently settled a case against the Ford Motor Company involving the defective design of a driver’s seat in a Ford Explorer. The Ford Explorer was rear ended, the driver who was wearing his seatbelt was projected into the rear seat when the driver’s seat back collapsed rearward. The Explorer continued off to the side of the road, subsequently striking the guardrail. The driver was again projected forward into the seatbelt where he sustained a severe injury to his liver. Plaintiff alleged that the design of the Explorer seat was too weak, allowing it to collapse rearward. In a rear impact the only protection that an occupant has is the seat back and head rest behind him and the design of the seat should be strong enough to maintain the occupant upright within the safe confines of the seat. This case has been one of several “seat back failure cases” or cases involving the driver’s or passenger’s seat collapsing rearward in a rear impact, that Atlee, Hall & Brookhart has successfully handled against all of the big three American automobile manufacturers on behalf of its catastrophically injured clients. The seat is an occupant restraint and should not collapse rearward in a rear impact. Much like a seatbelt prevents an occupant from moving forward in a frontal collision, the seat should perform the same function in a rear collision and prevent the occupant from striking the interior of the vehicle. Unfortunately, many of the front seats in automobiles, on America’s highways, are not up to the task of protecting people in rear impacts. When a seat back collapses, the occupant may slide out from under the seatbelt, up the seatback and into the rear seat where they can strike their head and spine, resulting in significant brain injury, paralysis or death. If there is a child seated in the rear seat, collapse of the seatback can result in disastrous occupant-to-occupant contact between the child and the front seat occupant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)