Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Missouri injury attorney, I know states have been pursuing lawsuits with tobacco companies for many years, alleging the companies hurt people and drove up state costs by failing to disclose information on the risks of smoking. So I was interested to see a recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling saying that state could not legally release its claim to its share of a large tobacco settlement. Williams v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was filed by Mayola Williams, the personal representative of deceased smoker Jesse Williams, and tied up in appeals in the 12 years since the original victory for Williams in 1999. Reynolds eventually paid the damages slated for the Williams estate, but refused to pay the 60 percent slated for the state of Oregon, saying the state released its claim to the damages in another settlement. In this case, the high court found that the state’s statutory right to the damages is not a “released claim” within the meaning of the settlement.

The estate of Jesse Williams sued after his death from lung cancer in 1997, alleging fraud and negligence by Reynolds. It won a total of $79.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages in 1999, and after lengthy appeals, the punitive damages award was upheld in 2009. The state of Oregon is entitled to 60 percent of the punitive damages under a state law funding crime victims’ services. Meanwhile, the state of Oregon itself had also sued tobacco companies, claiming millions in smoking-related losses for Medicaid and state employee health care expenses. That case was combined with other states’ cases and ended in a national settlement in which Oregon and other states released future claims relating to many aspects of tobacco products.

When the Williams case was originally decided, Reynolds told the state that the multistate settlement had relieved it of any duty to pay the 60 percent of the punitive damages in Williams. The state moved to enforce its damages in court, but this was stayed for years during appeals. When Williams was resolved, it recommenced trial and eventually found for Reynolds. Both Williams and the state appealed, and the Oregon Court of Appeals certified the case directly to the state Supreme Court.

Reynolds suffered a reverse of fortune on appeal, where the high court found no release of damages by the state of Oregon. In the multistate settlement agreement, Oregon released Reynolds from liability for “any and all civil claims... liabilities of any nature... whether legal, equitable or statutory.” The question is whether the state’s interest in the Williams settlement is covered by this release, the court noted. That interest was not created by direct participation in the case, it said, but by state statute. And that statute applies regardless of the nature or subject of the underlying claim, the court noted — which means the state’s interest does not truly arise from tobacco-related claims. The state is a judgment creditor, but does not have any special rights or obligations before judgment is entered. Thus, the state’s interest in these damages is not a “released claim” under the multistate settlement, even though that settlement defined “claim” quite broadly. The high court reversed the trial court and ordered an entry of judgment for the state.

As a St. Louis product liability lawyer, I applaud this decision. If Reynolds had succeeded on appeal, it would have been released from liability more than half of the money it was ordered to pay in the original case. And thanks to the decade of appeals in that case, the public can rest assured that those damages are legally valid. As it is, both the Williams estate and the state of Oregon have waited a decade or longer for the money they’re owed. This is possible for large companies like tobacco companies because they have the resources to keep legal issues alive, even when they look like losers, legally speaking. With so much money at stake, companies are often willing to spend a lot on lawyers to file “hail Marys,” because the legal fees are cheaper than paying what they owe. A large part of my work as a southern Illinois defective products attorney is helping injured people overcome the disadvantage their unequal resources gives them when they sue large companies.

Continue reading "Oregon High Court Rules State Cannot Release Interest in Tobacco Class Action Settlement" »

As a southern Illinois product liability attorney, I was interested to see a case in the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involving an accident with allegedly defective scaffolding. In Bielskis v. Louisville Ladders Inc., Raymond Bielskis sued over injuries he sustained after falling from a three-foot mini-scaffold. The case turned on his ability to prove his claim with an expert witness. The trial court found that his expert was qualified to testify, but failed a Daubert test and thus was barred from testifying. Without his expert, the court then ruled, Bielskis could not continue his case. In this opinion, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds those decisions.

Bielskis was an acoustical ceiling carpenter for International Decoration at the time of his 2005 accident. A previous employer had given him a mini-scaffold that he rarely used, but used it on that day because a colleague had borrowed his larger scaffold. After working on the mini-scaffold for several hours without incident, Bielskis wheeled it into a different room, climbed to the top and began working, whereupon it collapsed. On inspection, he saw that a caster stem above one wheel had broken. He eventually brought a lawsuit against the manufacturer, Louisville Ladders, for design and manufacturing defects and failure to warn, as well as several negligence claims. To support his claims, he hired expert witness Neil Mizen, a mechanical engineer, who wrote a report on the reason for the failure. Louisville Ladder attacked this report as unreliable because Mizen did not use stringent enough scientific methodology. Bielskis moved to reopen discovery so he could find another expert, but the trial court denied this and then granted summary judgment for Louisville Ladder, saying Bielskis could not support his claim without an expert. Bielskis appealed.

On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in dismissing Mizen’s testimony in the first place. That court faulted Mizen for his “leap” from the assertion that the caster stem broke — with which the defense agreed — to the explanation that it broke because it was screwed in too tightly. Bielskis argued that this testimony was not unreliable and at worst “shaky,” admissible though vulnerable to cross-examination. The Seventh Circuit disagreed. Mizen made no attempt to test his hypothesis, it said, and indeed he even mistook the size of the caster stem at first. By contrast, the defense expert performed stress analysis tests with the caster in different configurations. Furthermore, the court said, he proposed no design alternatives aside from “other means” without demonstrating pervasive industry use. Thus, his opinion would likely not have helped the jury make a decision, the court said. Furthermore, it upheld the decision not to allow Bielskis a continuance to find a new expert, saying the district court was entitled to keep discovery closed. Finally, it upheld the choice to dismiss the case, saying Bielskis could not prove his case without expert testimony.

This case is disturbing to me as a Missouri defective products lawyer, because it appears to give federal district courts the power to end cases after one bad choice of expert witness. Expert witnesses are required in almost every product liability case, as the court notes, so they are vital. If a trial court does not like the original expert witness, it may reject that expert — but plaintiffs can be and usually are given a chance to find an alternative. The Seventh quoted its own previous decision showing the dangers of this approach, saying it is generally prejudicial if a court causes a need for a continuance and then denies the continuance. It is not clear from this decision why the Seventh declined to find prejudice in this case, since the circumstances certainly echo that description. As an experienced St. Louis personal injury attorney, I work hard to find my clients strong expert testimony to avoid this kind of situation.

Continue reading "Seventh Circuit Upholds Exclusion of Plaintff’s Expert in Defective Scaffolding Claim – Bielskis v. Louisville Ladders Inc." »

As a Missouri auto accident attorney, I frequently write here about cases involving alleged defects with an automobile itself or one of its parts. These can cause a crash even when the driver is doing nothing unsafe, putting the people in the car and everyone around them at serious risk because of an auto company’s mistakes. That was the allegation in Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., an Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from Alabama. Peggy Bender lost a family member in a crash involving a Mazda Miata; she alleged that the airbags in the Miata were defective. Mazda sought to remove the case to federal court, but the federal court sent it back despite a pending ruling on the same issue in the Eleventh Circuit. Despite a ruling keeping that other case in federal court, the Eleventh in this case ruled that it did not have the authority to bring the case back into federal court.

Bender originally filed her lawsuit in Alabama state court against Mazda and the dealership where the Miata was purchased. Mazda removed the case, arguing that the amount in controversy was more than $75,000 and the auto dealership was not a proper defendant. Bender argued that there was insufficient evidence on the amount in controversy. Mazda cited a contemporary Alabama case, Roe v. Michelin North America Inc., which was awaiting a decision in the Eleventh Circuit at the time. Roe had similar facts, but the district court in that case found the amount in controversy, while not expressly stated, was “readily deducible” and “clear” from the complaint. The district court should follow this earlier ruling, Mazda said, or at least stay the case until the Eleventh made its ruling in Roe. The district court denied this motion and sent the case back to state court. Six months later, the Eleventh affirmed in Roe, keeping the case in federal court. Mazda moved in federal court for reconsideration of the previous ruling, but the federal court said it no longer had jurisdiction over the case because it had already been remanded. Mazda appealed.

On appeal, the Eleventh found that the district court was right — it was powerless to make new rulings in the case. This was true even though Mazda’s argument would otherwise have succeeded in moving the case back to federal court. The Eleventh found Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama was controlling. In that case, a claim moved back and forth from state to federal court, including a remand to state court from federal court. The defendants filed a successful motion to reconsider, and the plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the federal courts no longer had any authority to reconsider once the case was remanded. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, and in the current case, applied the same logic. Once a case is remanded, it said, the federal district court and even its federal appeals court have no jurisdiction to reconsider that remand order. It doesn’t matter that the remand order was legally erroneous under Roe, the Eleventh said; federal courts still have no jurisdiction. “The case has been removed to state court and that is where it will stay.”

As a St. Louis product liability lawyer, I’m interested in this case in part because it underscores an often-used tactic in injury cases. Injury cases, especially auto product liability cases like this, usually pit a single individual or family against a large, wealthy corporation. These corporations have a substantial advantage in terms of resources and legal expertise, so they don’t suffer much harm when they drag out the case with novel legal tactics or unlikely appeals. By contrast, this delay can hurt the plaintiff, who may not have the money to continue chasing the case through the court system (or systems). Indeed, plaintiffs often sue because the injury left them with serious financial problems. As a southern Illinois car crash attorney, I work hard to keep my cases where they belong and as short and easy on the plaintiffs as I can.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Refuses to Send Auto Product Liability Case Back to Federal Court – Bender v. Mazda Motor Co." »

As a southern Illinois defective products lawyer, I know defects in auto products are among the deadliest product defects, because they expose their victims to high-speed auto accidents. Most drivers could stand to be a little more careful, but no matter how much care you use, you’re only as safe as your vehicle is. An alleged defect in a Lincoln Town Car killed a man and badly injured a woman in Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., in which the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately rejected a large jury verdict in the family’s favor. John and Dora Jablonski were stopped in their Lincoln Town Car when Natalie Ingrahm caused a crash that killed John and left Dora permanently disfigured. Dora and her son, John Jr., won a $43 million verdict in Madison County court, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that the evidence for negligent design was not sufficient.

The Jablonskis were heading home when they reached a construction zone and came to a complete stop. Ingrahm rear-ended them at 55 to 65 miles per hour. The crash sent a large pipe wrench in the Jablonskis’ trunk flying into the Town Car’s gas tank, which in turn caused a fire. John died and Dora was severely burned, causing permanent disfigurement. Dora and John Jr. later sued Ingrahm, who settled, and Ford. At trial, they alleged Ford had willfully and wantonly defectively designed the Town Car by placing the fuel tank vertically behind the axle; failing to shield the tank; and failing to warn consumers of the risk. The trial relied heavily on expert testimony on auto design, which noted that Ford has mostly moved away from placing gas tanks behind the axle and allegedly knows this placement is unsafe. It also included evidence of Ford adding gas tank shields to Crown Victoria Police Interceptors — which are designed on the same platform as the Town Car — but not warning the Jablonskis or other Town Car owners. This last theory had never been pleaded and was included in jury instructions over Ford’s objections. Ford appealed the ruling to an Illinois appeals court, and again to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Before the state high court, Ford argued that it should have won judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiffs did not present enough evidence that Ford breached any standard of care. The high court rejected this as to compliance with industry standards, saying Ford is wrong to argue that compliance with industry standards is enough to show no liability. However, it agreed with Ford that the evidence presented on risk vs. the utility of moving the fuel tank failed to show Ford was negligent. The evidence is too mixed to show that Ford chose an unreasonably dangerous design, it said. Finally, on the post-sale duty to warn count, it found that evidence for it was not truly submitted at trial. The high court also found the jury instructions improperly used language not adopted in Illinois and declined to adopt it. It said Ford’s choice to add shields to the Crown Victoria trunks was a voluntary undertaking that did not extend to civilian vehicles on the same platform like the Jablonskis’. Thus, it reversed the verdict and remanded to trial court.

As a St. Louis auto accident attorney, I know this is an ongoing issue with certain Ford vehicles. That’s especially true for police vehicles, which as this decision notes are frequently involved in high-speed crashes because of the nature of police work. In fact, Ford has recently stopped making the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor altogether. However, even those of us who just use cars to get to work and errands are subject to other drivers’ bad decisions, as the Jablonski family was. This, it’s likely that similar claims will continue to spring up in Illinois, Missouri and across the United States. Of course, the claims in any individual lawsuit may not stand up to legal scrunity. That’s why part of my job as a Missouri personal injury lawyer is to construct and defend my clients’ cases as carefully as possible.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Throws Out Jury Verdict in Auto Product Liability Case – Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co." »

As a southern Illinois car crash lawyer and an experienced attorney in product liability cases, I know there are a lot of lawsuits alleging defective vehicles and vehicle parts that caused deadly rollover crashes. The Bridgestone/Firestone tire recalls a decade ago came after faulty tire construction sparked an unlikely increase in rollover crashes. This was made worse by the popularity of SUVs, a vehicle design that raises the vehicle’s center of gravity and thus increases the likelihood of a rollover. That contention was part of Show v. Ford Motor Co., an auto products liability case that ultimately did not survive its trip to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. David Show and Maria Federici were in a Ford Explorer when another driver hit the left rear tire; the SUV rolled over and both were injured. The Seventh Circuit ruled that they could not continue their case, however, because they did not get an expert to testify on the safety of the vehicle design.

Show was driving the 1993 Explorer through an Illinois intersection at about 30 mph when the other driver hit the vehicle; Federici was a passenger. It was not clear who was at fault or how serious their injuries were. The plaintiffs sued Ford, arguing that the Explorer’s design made it inherently unstable and thus was defective. At the end of discovery, plaintiffs still had not retained an expert witness to discuss the vehicle’s design. The magistrate judge found that this made it impossible for them to establish their claim under Illinois law. Illinois requires plaintiffs to show either failure to perform according to reasonable consumer expectations, or that the design proximately caused the injury. The magistrate granted summary judgment to Ford and the plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs did not deny that lacking an expert would make it impossible to establish liability by showing an inherently defective design that proximately caused their injuries. However, they told the Seventh Circuit, ordinary jurors should be able to use their own experience to establish whether the vehicle failed to live up to reasonable consumer expectations. Though the Illinois Supreme Court — whose opinion controls the law in Illinois — has not ruled on the subject, several appellate courts in the state have found expert witnesses to be necessary when some parts of the product’s design are outside of ordinary experience. Under caselaw, the Seventh said, the question of what a reasonable consumer would expect is just one way of examining the issues surrounding whether the product is unreasonably dangerous. In this case, the court said, the design of the 1993 Ford Explorer came from experts and likely requires an expert to explain, even though many jurors own cars. Intuition is not enough, the court said; physics and higher math are involved.

As a St. Louis auto products liability attorney, I’m disappointed that these plaintiffs will not get a chance to finish their case. But as a rule, I use expert testimony in cases like this because it helps the jury understand the facts better. Experts are not necessarily on the side of the auto company; there are plenty of experts who have testified in the past decade about the dangerous proclivity of SUVs to roll over. (In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has devoted several studies to addressing rollover problems.) And as the Seventh Circuit pointed out, a rollover accident can be described with physics and higher math. An expert can be expensive, and I prefer that costs to injured people be kept low — but as a Missouri product liability lawyer, I find expert testimony helpful.

Continue reading "SUV Rollover Case Cannot Proceed Without Technical Expert’s Testimony – Show v. Ford Motor Co." »

As a defective products lawyer in Missouri, I’m quite familiar with the issue of lead paint in older buildings. Before the 1970s, paint often contained lead as one ingredient. However, its use was banned because lead is a neurotoxin that can cause brain damage; the danger is particularly acute for young children, who may eat or suck on sweet-flavored lead paint chips and peelings, and remodelers who stir up dust. Lead poisoning is permanent and causes brain damage; neurological symptoms like delirium and hallucinations; and physical symptoms like anemia, hearing loss and stunted growth. Lead poisoning was the allegation made in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Gaines, a Mississippi Supreme Court ruling sending Trellvion Gaines and his mother back to lower court for further evidence.

Gaines was born in 1991, making him 20 years old at the time of the ruling. Early in his life, he lived with his mother and grandparents in a home built in the early 1900s, but which burned in 1994. Blood tests in 1993, when Gaines was two, found elevated blood lead levels; at 20, he has significant cognitive problems that he claims are the result of lead poisoning. Witnesses for Gaines testified that they had painted the home with Sherwin-Williams lead paint; Sherwin-Williams replied that it had stopped manufacturing interior lead paint in 1954 and all residential lead paint in 1972. After this court reversed a summary judgment decision, a trial court heard the case and a jury awarded $7 million to Gaines. Sherwin-Williams appealed, arguing that Gaines used witnesses who were unreliable, prejudicial and disclosed in an untimely manner; it also claimed the jury pool was biased.

On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court focused on the issue of whether Gaines sufficiently proved that his injuries were caused by exposure to lead paint. Gaines had just two lead tests, five days apart, showing elevated blood lead levels; his experts opined that he had been exposed from birth to the 1994 burning of the home. Sherwin-Williams argued that Gaines had been exposed only once, which is not enough for lead poisoning to cause brain damage. The high court found the experts employed by Gaines unreliable, in part because they relied upon one another for their diagnoses and in part because they were self-contradictory in places. Because Gaines underwent only two blood lead tests, both in the same week in 1993, expert testimony saying he had been chronically exposed to lead was speculation. And because speculation is inadmissible, and the experts did not sufficiently prove the connection between lead exposure and mental problems, the court said their testimony should not have been admitted. Thus, the high court reversed the verdict and remanded on the issue of causation.

Cases like this are important for me as a southern Illinois product liability attorney, because lead paint is one of the most widespread dangers for children in the United States. Any home old enough could have lead paint, and parents don’t always realize the problem exists. Lead paint lawsuits are not as common as other product liability lawsuits, like defective toys or unsafe drugs, but they still affect families all over the United States. Like almost all product liability cases, poisoning of children from lead paint is tragic and completely unnecessary. The same child growing up in a different home could easily avoid lead poisoning and live up to his or her full potential, including mental potential as well as physical health. As a St. Louis personal injury lawyer, I always prefer to prevent harm — but if it happens anyway, I believe the at-fault people should be held legally responsible.

Continue reading "Mississippi Supreme Court Reverses Verdict for Lead Paint Victim Based on Experts’ Speculation – Sherwin-Williams v. Gaines" »

As a southern Illinois products liability lawyer, I know that while suing after an injury is often the only available remedy, it’s much better when there’s no injury in the first place. And given human nature, strict regulation is one of the best ways to help consumers avoid injury. Inadequate regulation was at the heart of Bertanowski v. Spin Master, Inc., a Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision centered on defective toys. The toys in question were Aqua Dots, small beads that stick together when sprayed with water. Unfortunately, a Chinese subcontractor substituted a poisonous glue for the glue the manufacturer specified, using GHB, a drug the media has called a “date rape drug” because it causes unconsciousness and amnesia. At least two children ate the beads and fell into comas. About 600,000 out of more than a million defective kits were returned for a non-defective kit, another toy or a refund. Three million more were never sold.

This case centers around claims by a group of plaintiffs who bought Aqua Dots and suffered no injury, but sued to challenge the adequacy of the recall itself. Sarah Bertanowski and others sued Spin Master, Moose Enterprises, Target, Toys R Us and Wal-Mart, alleging violations of the federal Consumer Products Safety Act, breach of express and implied warranties and violations of state consumer protection laws. The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The trial court there denied class certification, saying a class-action case is inferior to a simpler remedy for this class: asking for refunds, which Spin Master had already given out to many customers. The Seventh Circuit authorized an interlocutory appeal.

On appeal, the Seventh quickly dismissed an argument from Spin Master that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Though they suffered no physical injury, the financial injury they suffered was adequate to create standing, the court said. It then turned to the merits of class certification. Though it agreed that certifying a class in this case seemed pointless, it chided the trial court for disregarding Rule 23(b)(3), the federal rule for certifying a class, by lumping a recall in with “adjudication.” Instead, the Seventh said, the court should have relied on 23(a)(4), which says a class may be certified only if the class representatives can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Because a class-action lawsuit is much more expensive than participating in the recall, the Seventh found that the class representatives were not adequately representing the class’s interests. It also pointed out that the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages could be difficult, given the patchwork of diverse state laws on the subject. And proposed subclasses within each state would still require expensive and difficult notices to each potential class member, the court wrote. Thus, it affirmed the district court’s refusal to certify a class.

As a Missouri defective products attorney, I’m disappointed that these plaintiffs won’t be able to pursue their underlying claim about the adequacy of the recall. The Aqua Dots kits retailed for about $20, so it’s true that the financial payments they could have claimed would be small relative to the expense of the litigation. But protecting the priceless lives and health of their children is probably the class’s true motivation for suing. If the recall was inadequate, as they apparently felt, that’s an issue that has a place in the courts. As a product defects lawyer in St. Louis, I frequently handle cases of dangerous products or failure to warn in which vulnerable people suffer serious and very preventable injuries. If federal regulators don’t do an adequate job preventing injuries like this, a lawsuit is the only redress victims may have.

Continue reading "Seventh Circuit Upholds No Class Certification for Families Suing Over Defective Toy – Bertanowski v. Spin Master" »

As a Missouri products liability lawyer, I was pleased to see a recent case from the Montana Supreme Court upholding a jury verdict in favor of a family that lost their 18-year-old son in an American Legion Baseball game. In Patch v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Debbie and Duane Patch sued the maker of the aluminum bat that was used in the game that killed Brandon Patch in 2003. They alleged that it improved the speed of baseballs so much that it enhanced the risks of playing baseball, and Hillerich & Bradsby should have warned users of those risks. In pretrial motions, the court declined to grant summary judgment to H&B on that issue, and also granted a motion to exclude a defense by H&B that users of the bats assume risks. At trial, the jury awarded the Patches $850,000 on the failure to warn claim. H&B appealed, but the Montana high court upheld that verdict.

The Patches originally brought claims for defective design, defective manufacturing and failure to warn, but the trial court granted summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim. It also granted an in limine motion to exclude H&B’s assumption of risk defense. On appeal, H&B argued that it should have been granted summary judgment on the failure to warn claim because Brandon Patch was a bystander not entitled to make a failure to warn claim about someone else’s bat. The Montana Supreme Court replied that this is contrary to both Montana caselaw and the Second Restatement of Torts. Furthermore, it noted that the risks created by using a bat go beyond the user and the purchaser; any player is a consumer placed at risk. And warnings need not only be physically printed on the bat; manufacturers can also distribute flyers, posters, press releases, ads and even oral warnings.

The Supreme Court also took up the issue of whether H&B should have been permitted to make an assumption of risk defense. An assumption of risk defense argues that the injured person had discovered the risk, or the risk is open and obvious, and the injured person thus voluntarily assumed the risk by using the product. The high court agreed with the trial court that the defense does not apply here, however, because no evidence showed that Brandon Patch knew these bats posed an enhanced risk. Without such a showing, the assumption of risk defense would be inappropriate. Finally, the Supreme Court discarded H&B’s challenge to the jury instructions, finding there was nothing wrong with the instructions actually submitted to the jury. Thus, it upheld the verdict and declined to call for a new trial.

Because I am an experienced St. Louis failure to warn attorney, I appreciate that this decision preserve the family’s victory in court. Manufacturers of all kinds of products, from toys to automobiles to prescription drugs, are required to warn their products’ users about risks from using those products. As this case shows, it’s not enough merely to show that any use of a baseball bat carries a risk; the Patches had to (and did) argue that the particular baseball bat carried an unreasonable risk above and beyond the risks of other bats. This allows victims and their families to recover financial damages from companies that unreasonably fail to warn about risks. Perhaps even more importantly, it gives companies an incentive to make sure their products are free of defects and as thoroughly explained as possible. As a southern Illinois wrongful death lawyer, I know injured people would far rather have avoided the injury in the first place than collect money afterward.

Continue reading "Montana Supreme Court Upholds Jury Award in Failure to Warn Case Involving Death of Teen – Patch v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co." »

As a southern Illinois product liability attorney, I know vehicle rollovers are one of the most dangerous types of car wreck — and also one that’s commonly associated with bad vehicle design. So I was disappointed to read that a single-vehicle rollover in Madison County, Ill., has put a mother and three children under the age of five in area hospitals. According to a June 2 article from the Belleville News-Democrat, Jessica Dillon, 25, of Roxana swerved to avoid a piece of metal in her lane on Illinois 255. The maneuver sent her Chevrolet Trailblazer into the left-hand median of the road, overturned, slid into the opposing lanes and was hit by a utility truck. Two of the children and their mother were listed in serious or critical condition as of June 2; the fourth was treated and released.

Jessica Dillon was heading south at about 11:45 a.m. May 31 when she swerved to avoid the metal in the road. The Illinois State Police report said she lost control of the Trailblazer, which overturned in the median. The car was then hit by a utility truck driven by Cody Helms, 16, of Edwardsville. Tristynn Dillon, age 4, was using a seatbelt but not an age-appropriate booster seat and was ejected from the car. She is in critical condition at Cardinal Glennon Hospital in St. Louis. The crash also caused serious injuries to Jessica Dillon and to Timothy Dillon, 2. Tyler Dillon, two months, suffered only minor injuries. The other occupants had age-appropriate safety restraints. Helms was not injured. Illinois State Police were still investigating and had not cited anyone as of June 2.

The newspapers have highlighted the issue of Tristynn Dillon’s safety restraints, and I agree that safety restraints are important. But as a St. Louis car crash lawyer, I’d also like to talk about the possibility that the Trailblazer was defective. SUVs came under fire 10 to 15 years ago, after their rising popularity drew attention to the fact that they were more likely to roll over than conventional passenger cars. Federal data from 2000 shows that rollovers accounted for 22 percent of fatal accidents involving cars, but 61.5 percent of fatal SUV crashes. Safety experts believe SUVs’ higher centers of gravity make them more likely to tip over, sometimes even in common driving situations such as swerving and leaving the road. If that was the case here, it’s possible that an inherently unstable — that is, defective — design was at the root of this family’s crash.

Continue reading "Southern Illinois SUV Rollover Accident Sends Mother and Three Children to Hospital" »

I wrote a few weeks ago, as a southern Illinois auto accident lawyer, about the federal study suggesting that electronic throttle systems aren’t responsible for unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles. So I was very interested to see a Feb. 23 article in the Chicago Tribune about a family that is undeterred by the report — they still believe their father’s death was caused by an electronic problem, not by driver error. Just as interestingly, the article quotes Southern Illinois University professor Dave Gilbert, an automotive technology expert, who says he stands by his earlier report that an electronic short could have caused the unintended acceleration. A second federal study expected this summer could cast more light on the subject.

Gilbert testified before Congress a year ago about a report he’d prepared on the possibility that unintended acceleration, rather than faulty floor mats or gas pedals, could be responsible for the slew of accidents. He had found that inducing an electronic short in the drive-by-wire systems in the cars could cause unintended acceleration, something he was able to reproduce in a laboratory. Gilbert told the Tribune that NASA’s own report mentions finding “tin whiskers” — small, hairlike deformations of the metal — on the pedal assemblies of the Toyota vehicles. That suggests that the federal government might have overstated its conclusions, he said. Meanwhile, Toyota has just announced yet another unintended acceleration recall of 2.17 million vehicles, which are attributed to gas pedal entrapment problems.

As a St. Louis car accident attorney, I hope safety investigators keep this in mind as they continue to look into the possibility of flaws in the electronic throttle systems. This is very important, because most cars made in the last decade use this kind of throttle. If it has serious safety problems, literally millions of vehicles could be unsafe for their own drivers and everyone who happens to be around them. Alternative interpretations of NASA’s study may also be important for people like the man in the article, who lost his 87-year-old father after an alleged unintended acceleration incident in a 2006 Corolla. Surveillance video shows the car swerving to avoid pedestrians, so the driver clearly had enough mental presence to understand and avoid the danger — making driver error more difficult to believe.

Continue reading "Illinois Professor Stands By His Work on Unintended Acceleration in Toyota Vehicles" »

Multi- Piece wheels have been killing and injuring people who work on them as well as bystanders for years. Despite each multi piece wheel is unique and has different issues that can make it dangerous for people working on the wheels to take them apart and reassemble them safely. The manufacturers of multi-piece wheels have tried through OSHA regulations to put the fault on the user of the wheel when the fault lies with the wheels design.

On January 17, 2011, A 29-year-old man is in critical condition after an accident while inflating a dump truck tire. It happened at Best Auto Repair in Arnold. Tim Jacobs, who runs Auto Bodies Unlimited next door, said he heard an explosion and everyone in his business went running over.

It was the sound of a wheel blowing apart, the rusted rim of a dump truck turning into a projectile. A 29-year-old employee was struck and critically injured.

"The rim had rusted in half through the center, and the whole outer half of the wheel came out and hit him in the head," Jacobs said.

"The force and the concussion of that explosion knocked him back several feet and the man sustained extensive damage, serious injuries to his face and his head," said Ron Harder of the Rock Community Fire Protection District.

Witnesses said he was just supposed to be filling up the tires when this happened. They said it's something no one could have predicted.

Still, Jacobs said these so-called split rims are notoriously dangerous. He said people used to work on them in protective cages because there was often a problem with explosions. They are rarely used now, but some older trucks, still have them.

"It should have been made a law, I think, that all of them would be taken off of the trucks, that anybody with a truck with them had a certain amount of time to have them changed out," Jacobs said. The victim in this case was rushed to St. Anthony's Medical Center. And all friends can do now is wait for news.

Carey, Danis & Lowe has a special focus on lawsuits involving defective or dangerous products, or failure to warn about a product’s danger, including multi-piece wheels. In May 2000 Jeff Lowe was one of the lead attorneys that obtained a 105 Million Dollar verdict against Firestone for a defective multipiece wheel. This area of the law applies to almost any consumer good – clothing, toys, food, prescription and over-the-counter drugs, household furnishings and much more. Federal regulators are responsible for regulating the safety of many of these products, but unfortunately, they aren’t always ahead of the companies they regulate. And even when they do take action, people who have already been hurt by a defective product cannot benefit. Our southern Illinois dangerous product attorneys help clients recover compensation for the costs and pain of their injuries. That includes medical costs and lost income as well as compensation for pain, suffering and any death or disability.

If you or someone you love was seriously hurt by a defective product in Missouri or Illinois, Carey, Danis & Lowe can help. To learn more about us or set up a free consultation, send us a message online or call toll-free at 1-877-678-3400.

As a Missouri product liability lawyer, I have been very interested in the reports of unintended acceleration in some late-model Toyota and Lexus vehicles. As I’ve written here in the past, news reports have found an unusually high number of those vehicles involved in incidents when the vehicle seemed to accelerate out of control, often with the driver standing on the brakes to stop it. Multiple deaths are attributed to the problem, including the death of a California Highway Patrol officer trained in handling high-speed emergencies. This eventually led to a recall of millions of Toyota vehicles for retrofits of the pedal and the floor mats – but some safety advocates believed the real problem was the cars’ electronic throttle systems. As the Los Angeles Times reported Feb. 8, a new federal study has case doubt on that theory.

The study was released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but conducted by engineers on loan from NASA. Those engineers found no problems with the software used in Toyota’s electronic throttle control systems that could lead to unintended acceleration. Toyota gave NASA engineers access to 280,000 lines of software code as well as the circuitry used in the systems, also known as drive-by-wire. The team did find flaws, and conceded that it was possible for two of those flaws to converge in a way that would cause unintended acceleration under some conditions. But it said there was no evidence that this happened in normal use or was especially likely. Regardless, the NHTSA said it planned to propose rules requiring brake override on all vehicles – which is currently offered by Toyota.

These results concern me as a St. Louis car accident attorney. As the Times notes, reports of unintended acceleration went up dramatically after electronic throttles became standard. Another study sponsored by the federal Department of Transportation, this one conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, is expected in the summer and will provide another data point. In the meantime, however, the NASA results are still a victory of a sort for injured Toyota drivers and occupants, because they do validate the idea that Toyota’s gas pedals and floor mats were flawed – adding to the evidence provided by the recalls. Toyota has already paid two fines totaling about 48.8 million for delaying reports and recalls of those problems, and that is likely damning enough to fuel the lawsuits facing the automaker, which number more than 100.

Continue reading "Federal Report Rules Out Electronic Throttle Controls in Unintended Acceleration Cases" »

As a St. Louis product defects attorney, I was very interested to read about the start of a trial that pits St. Louis-area medical providers against tobacco companies. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Feb. 1 on the opening statements in the case. The long-running case was originally filed in 1998 by medical care providers claiming tobacco companies should pay the costs of treating patients who couldn’t or didn’t pay their medical costs. They said cigarettes are a defective product and unreasonably dangerous, and that tobacco companies knew about it long before they let the public know. The 37 plaintiffs, mainly Missouri hospitals, seek $500 million in damages from 11 tobacco companies.

The case has been delayed for nearly 13 years because of pretrial motions. Huge amounts of money are at stake, and large teams of lawyers are working for both sides. The case is expected to take as long as seven months, which lengthened the jury selection process as the court looked for people who could reasonably be available for so long. In opening statements, an attorney for the plaintiffs said tobacco company documents show they knew about the harm cigarettes can cause as early as the 1950s, but continued to sell them. The defense attorney who spoke conceded that tobacco companies have not always behaved well, but said the hospitals aren’t the ones who were damaged by that behavior. In fact, she argued, hospitals have made money from the ill effects of cigarettes on patients’ health. She also said a dangerous product is not necessarily a defective one; knives used to cut fruit can also cut fingers.

As a Missouri defective product lawyer, I don’t believe that analogy is right. Knives are tools that can be used for good purposes as well as to harm. Cigarettes don’t have a purpose other than pleasure, and they are harmful even when used as directed. And unlike kitchen knives, people not addicted to cigarettes can easily live without them. In cases involving defective products, people who were hurt by those products generally make the claim that they had a reasonable belief that the products were safe. All manufacturers have a legal obligation to make sure the products they offer the public are safe when used correctly, or warn the public when they can’t remove a danger. In this case, the hospitals are saying tobacco companies failed in that duty and they sustained damages – unpaid hospital bills – as a result. Whether that argument impresses the jury has yet to be seen.

Continue reading "Trial Opens in Lawsuit by City of St. Louis and Hospitals Against Tobacco Companies" »

Guidant Corp.'s heart defibrillators have been linked to 13 medical device injuries ending in death. On Wednesday, a federal judge approved an agreement which calls for Guidant, now part of Boston Scientific, to pay $296 million. On top of what may be the largest criminal penalty in a medical device case, Boston Scientific will serve three years’ probation.

"I believe this serves not only the interests of the community and the interests of justice, but respect for the law and corporate responsibility,” said U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank.

Previously, Judge Frank rejected the $296 million agreement after doctors and patients connected with the faulty implantable defibrillators complained that the fine was an insufficient penalty for Boston Scientific. However, once the period of probation was added, the judge agreed.

As part of its probation, Boston Scientific will have to report to the U.S. Probation Office on a quarterly basis and allow regular records inspections. Boston Scientific also was called upon to continue raising awareness about heart disease through charitable programming.

The cause of the unprecedented fine was not the failure of the device. It was due to the company’s failure to disclose important safety information about three defibrillator devices that had serious problems. Guidant was in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because it concealed information from the FDA about dangerous short-circuiting of the implantable defibrillators. The company was aware of the devices’ problem as far back as 2002. The company tried to fix the problem with the devices but did not report it to the FDA.

After years of making less-than-aggressive attempts to deal with the problems of the devices, Guidant finally publically detailed the device problems in 2005, which later led to an FDA recall.

In 2007, Boston Scientific settled more than 8,000 lawsuits, agreeing to pay $240 million in connection with claims that Guidant hid the defects associated with the defibrillators.

As a Missouri auto defect attorney, I have followed the news about the Toyota sudden acceleration problems with great interest. As you might remember, regulators focused their attention on Toyota vehicles in 2009 after evidence emerged showing that Toyotas had an unusual number of accidents blamed on acceleration the drivers didn’t intend. The automaker initially blamed floor mats for trapping gas pedals, then “sticky” gas pedals, and recalled millions of Toyota and Lexus models to fix those problems. But some observers believe the real problem is with newer cars’ electronic throttles, also known as “drive by wire,” malfunctioning without a clear way for drivers to override them. That’s the theory behind product defect lawsuits filed by seven insurance companies against Toyota on Dec. 30.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the insurers are seeking to recover insurance payments made to their customers in crashes they believe were caused by defects in Toyota vehicles. They are claiming damages in excess of $230,000 from 14 crashes, but say as many as 725 crashes may have been caused by unintended acceleration. In the lawsuits, the insurance companies say the problem comes from defects in Toyota’s products, and that Toyota could have fixed it by including an override system that idles the vehicle when the gas and brake are both pressed. Evidence shows that Toyota discussed this solution with federal regulators as early as 2007 -- but didn’t implement it until 2010. The same legal theory is behind a slew of lawsuits by accident victims, which are consolidated in California federal court and still pending. Toyota was also sued by Allstate Insurance three months ago.

The new lawsuits indicate to me, as a St. Louis car crash lawyer, that all of these lawsuits are likely on the right track. Individuals may or may not choose to sue for emotional reasons, but when a business like an insurance company files a claim, it’s likely because that business thinks it’s worth the financial risk. That bodes well for everyone making the claims against Toyota. If records show the automaker considered putting in a safety override to its electronic throttle system three years before it actually did so, that could look a lot to a jury like a decision to place finances ahead of its customers’ safety. And as other automakers know, that is unlikely to impress a jury favorably. After all the claims are finished, Toyota is likely to be on the hook for millions of dollars, not just the money the insurers claimed.

Continue reading "Insurance Companies Join Drivers With Sudden Acceleration Lawsuits Against Toyota" »

As a Missouri defective automobile attorney, I was pleased to see reports that the federal Department of Transportation is looking into allegations about unsafe rental cars. As the Detroit News reported Nov. 23, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating how quickly car rental companies make repairs to vehicles in their fleets that are subject to recalls. The agency said it was acting in response to allegations that people have suffered injuries or deaths because rental car companies failed to pull recalled vehicles off the road. There has already been one high-profile case fitting that description, in which two young women died after their vehicle caught fire on a California highway. Their mother co-founded an auto safety group that has asked the FTC to require repairs before rental cars go back on the road.

The California case involved sisters Jacqueline and Raechel Houck, ages 20 and 24. They died in 2004 after the Chrysler PT Cruiser they had rented caught fire on the road, causing them to hit a tractor-trailer. Later, it was discovered that the PT Cruiser had been recalled for exactly this problem -- a risk of catching fire under the hood. Their parents sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car for renting the young women a car that was recalled because of the possibility of catching fire while in use. In fact, the family claims Enterprise rented the car at least four times after receiving the recall notice. After fighting the lawsuit for five years, Enterprise settled this summer for $15 million. A spokesperson for the car rental industry said no law requires companies to repair recalled vehicles before they go back on the road, but that most companies pull recalled cars from their fleets.

I hope the NHTSA investigation confirms that statement. But as a St. Louis auto defect lawyer, I believe the financial incentives at play here work against safety, not for it. Car rental companies only have so many vehicles, and when they place vehicles out of service, they can serve fewer customers. That leads to less money, of course. As a result, the companies have an incentive to keep as many cars on the road as possible. Even when the risk of a lawsuit is taken into account, some managers may judge that the risk of an accident is less desirable than the near-certainty of not making money while the vehicle is grounded. This policy makes sense if your only goal is to make money -- but it’s an unacceptable safety risk for rental car customers and the people they happen to pass on the road.

Continue reading "Federal Government Launches Investigation Into Safety Recall Repairs on Rental Cars " »

The terrifying and tragic story of California Highway Patrol officer Mark Saylor and his family has come to a resolution, in the form of an out-of-court settlement with Toyota. As a St. Louis automotive product liability lawyer, I hope that the settlement helps Saylor's family to gain some sense of closure amidst their sorrow. The accident that killed Saylor and his family became famous last year because it was one of the first stories of deaths blamed on Toyota and Lexus vehicles that had unintended acceleration problems. Saylor was a law enforcement officer trained in handling vehicles at very high speeds, making this tragedy particularly hard to blame on the mistakes or inexperience of the driver.

Saylor's story is a particularly dramatic version of the kind of tragedy that I see frequently in my work as a Missouri automotive defect attorney. In August 2009, Saylor, 45, was driving a 2009 Lexus E350, with his wife, Cleofe, 45; their daughter Mahala, 13; and Cleofe's brother, Chris Lastrella, 39; just outside San Diego. Lastrella called 911 to report that the car's accelerator pedal was stuck. The Lexus raced down the freeway at speeds up to 120 miles per hour, and Saylor was unable to stop it. Lastrella ended the call by saying "Hold on and pray." The Lexus hit another vehicle and landed in a ravine. Everyone in the Lexus was killed.

The devastated Saylor and Lastrella families filed a defective product claim against Toyota, the maker of Lexus vehicles, and a negligence lawsuit against the Bob Baker Lexus dealership, which owned the loaner car that Officer Saylor was driving while his own car was being repaired. In the negligence suit, the families allege that the loaner car had the wrong floor mats installed, and according to the Sheriff's Department, the floor mats may have caused the accelerator to get stuck. The families' claims against the dealership have not been resolved, but Toyota has reached a confidential out-of-court settlement with the families. Meanwhile, Bob Baker and his attorneys are concerned that Toyota did not stand with them, and wonder whether Toyota plans to help the Saylors and Lastrellas make the case that the dealership was negligent.

This case is of interest to southern Illinois vehicle defect attorneys like me because so many people have been affected by Toyota's sudden acceleration problems. There are millions of Toyota owners, and at least 93 people are believed to have died because of this defect for which 8 million cars were recalled. It's possible that there could be more we don't even know about. Toyota has insisted that the vast majority of sudden acceleration has happened because of driver error, not because of defects in their cars. Toyota's attempts to quash research into its products' design flaws suggest that the company is not as interested as it should be in making sure there is no defect -- or learning how to make sure that sudden acceleration problems do not continue. But this out-of-court settlement may signal a new willingness to make amends, if not to acknowledge the problem.

Continue reading "Family of High-Profile Runaway Acceleration Victims Settles Lawsuit Against Toyota" »

As a Missouri car crash attorney, I have been carefully following the news about Toyota and other carmakers that have recalled their vehicles for serious safety defects. Given the lawsuits mounting against Toyota, I was dismayed to see recent articles reporting that rental car companies are not required to fix recalled safety defects in their cars before renting them out. Despite being ordered to pay $15 million in a recent lawsuit involving two deaths, Enterprise Rent-A-Car has said that it may not immediately fix cars whose recalls it does not regard as pressing.

This isn't the first time Enterprise has been in the news for cutting corners on customer safety. Last year, Enterprise was discovered to have ordered about 66,000 Chevy Impalas without their standard side airbags in order to save money. Then the company advertised the cars for sale as if they did have the airbags, misleading customers who expected that the cars had all their standard safety features. The more recent defective rental car issue gained attention from a tragic case involving the deaths of two sisters. Jacqueline Houck, 20, and her sister, Raechel, 24, rented a Chrysler PT Cruiser from a California Enterprise Rent-A-Car in 2004 so that they could visit family near Los Angeles. The PT Cruiser had been recalled a month before the crash because of a broken power steering hose that posed a fire hazard. While the Houck sisters were driving, a fire broke out under the hood. They lost control of the car, hit a semi-trailer and died.

Consumer advocates including the Houck sisters' mother, Carol Houck, have petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to forbid rental car companies from continuing to rent out defective cars. They have said it's deceptive to rent out a car that customers should be able to assume is safe, when the company knows that there are recalls associated with the car. If someone chooses not to take their personal car in to have a recalled defect repaired right away, they are aware of the car's defect and have chosen to drive it anyway. But a defective rental car is a different situation. The customer rents a car expecting that they're paying for the use of a safe, functional vehicle, but only the rental car company knows whether this is really true.

In my view as a St. Louis auto accident attorney, it is disturbing that Enterprise does not see every safety recall as “pressing.” If the defect was serious enough to merit a recall, it should be serious enough to fix before renting the car to a customer who has no reason to think there is anything wrong with it. It's easy to see why rental car companies don't want to immediately fix cars when they learn about recalls: money. If they have to pull some of their cars out of circulation when a recall is announced, those cars will not be bringing in rental fees while they're in the shop. From the company's perspective, it's easier and cheaper to pull the cars out of circulation when it's convenient for the company. But this way of looking at it puts consumer and driver safety at the bottom of the list, which is the opposite of where it belongs. It shouldn't be up to victims and their families alone to deal with the financial and health consequences of accidents that negligent car rental companies failed to prevent.

Continue reading "Rental Car Companies Put Unwitting Customers’ Lives at Risk With Defective Cars" »

As a St. Louis auto accident attorney, I am very concerned about design flaws that make automobiles more susceptible to crashing. That's why a recent story in the New York Times about a Japanese inventor who argues that having separate gas and brake pedals right next to each other in cars is simply dangerous got my attention. The inventor has come up with a new design that combines both pedals into one, preventing crashes caused by "pedal confusion," when a driver mistakenly hits the accelerator instead of the brake.

Toyota and other car makers that have been faced with lawsuits for “sticky” gas pedals have blamed driver error for the unintended acceleration. Masuyuki Naruse, 74, an inventor who owns a small factory in southwest Japan, has designed a new pedal to prevent this problem. Drivers would press one part of the pedal with a sideways motion to accelerate, and press down like on a traditional brake pedal to stop. Pushing down on the brake automatically releases the accelerator. “We have a natural tendency to stomp down when we panic," said Naruse. "The automakers call it driver error. But what if their design’s all wrong?” Another inventor, Sven Gustafsson, came up with a similar idea, and a prototype of his pedal is being tested by regulators in Sweden. Naruse's design is being used in about 130 cars in Japan.

(Image from the New York Times)

The single-pedal design offers an important opportunity for automakers to invest in a new safety technology. Yet, even though it has been around for two decades and clearly offers an improvement for public safety, automakers have not adopted it. Naruse said that Toyota engineers tested a prototype of his pedal in 2000, but they didn't like the design. In 2009 alone, 37 deaths and 9500 injuries were attributed to accidents caused by pedal confusion in Japan, according to the Tokyo-based Institute for Traffic Accident Research and Data Analysis. In the United States, auto safety experts say there have probably been tens of thousands of crashes because of pedal confusion, most notably a 2003 accident in Santa Monica, Calif., that killed 10 people when a driver accelerated into an outdoor market.

Even though drivers would have to learn how to drive smoothly with the new pedal, in my view as a Missouri car crash attorney, the prospect of preventing accidents by changing the car's design seems worth the investment. Retrofitting cars with the pedal is not prohibitively expensive. Naruse said it costs about 100,000 yen, or $1,156, and it does not require major changes to the car's existing braking or acceleration systems.

Continue reading "Inventors Design New Gas and Brake Pedal to Avoid ‘Pedal Confusion’ Crashes" »

The bad news just keeps coming for Toyota. According to the Washington Post, a federal grand jury has subpoenaed information from Toyota for an investigation into concerns about vehicle safety defects. As a Missouri car wreck attorney, I've been following the investigations into Toyota's runaway acceleration problems. Now the focus has widened to include defects with steering relay rods. Just as with the sticky acceleration pedals, Toyota is facing accusations that it kept quiet about the steering relay rod problems rather than informing consumers. While Toyota undoubtedly doesn't welcome these developments, it's good that these problems are coming to light so that Toyota and other automakers can learn that there are consequences to putting public safety at risk by allowing defective vehicles on the roads.

Several Toyota trucks and SUVs -- certain 1989 to 1998 4Runners, T100 pickups and Toyota pickups -- are implicated in the faulty steering relay rods investigation. The defective steering relay rods, which connect the steering wheel to the wheels, reportedly break and leave the drivers without control of their vehicles, making this a very serious safety problem. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is apparently treating this as a criminal investigation. The investigation is looking into whether Toyota shrugged off complaints of steering relay rods breaking. Toyota had issued recalls first in only Japan, claiming that the problem would affect only Japanese drivers and not Americans because the tight maneuvering required in Japan would stress the steering mechanisms more. However, at least 15 crashes, 3 deaths, and 7 injuries have occurred in connection with the problem in the U.S., according to the NHTSA. Toyota issued a U.S. recall in 2005, but only a small number of the affected vehicles were fixed. In 2007, Michael Levi Stewart, an Idaho teenager, was killed after the steering relay rod snapped in his 1991 Toyota pickup, causing it to veer off the road and roll over.

As a St. Louis car crash lawyer, I hope that the NHTSA's toughening stance on Toyota's numerous recalls will deter other automakers from failing to warn consumers about safety issues in a timely manner. Accidents like Michael Levi Stewart's leave families and communities with tremendous emotional losses, especially when they happen through no fault of the victim's. Automakers do not have a right to withhold information about serious safety problems until they feel that the right time has come to disclose it. All manufacturers are legally required to tell the public about any unavoidable safety problems with their products. Automakers who place their company's financial and public relations concerns ahead of public safety can be held responsible for any harm that their products do. Their failure to warn the public is a form of negligence, or carelessness, and victims should not and do not have to bear the consequences of the company's negligence all on their own.

Continue reading "Toyota Faces Criminal Investigation Into Failure to Warn About Steering Rod Problem" »

In February, I wrote about the lawsuits that Toyota will increasingly face regarding the unintended acceleration of some of its cars, which has been blamed for 93 deaths. Toyota's handling of recalls related to the unintended acceleration problem have led to some serious public- and government relations problems, since the company appears to have sat on evidence about these problems for three years before doing anything about them. The New York Times recently reported that Toyota has admitted that some of the reported incidents of sudden acceleration really were related to problems with floor mats and sticking accelerator pedals, rather than only due to driver error, as the carmaker had previously claimed. From my perspective as a Missouri car crash attorney, Toyota's admission means that consumers and their advocates should continue to insist on complete answers to questions about whether their vehicles are safe.

Toyota's acknowledgement that the floor mat and sticking pedal problems are real came in the context of its investigation of about 2,000 reports of sudden acceleration. The company did not say how many of these incidents it believes were caused by floor mats or sticking pedals, but its spokesman, Mike Michels, said more of the incidents were related to floor mats than to pedals. Michels said that none of the vehicles with sticking pedals were involved in crashes, and he was unable to say how many crashes were related to the floor mats. Toyota maintains that in almost all crashes related to unintended acceleration, the problem was that the driver mistakenly pressed the accelerator rather than the brake.

Michels said there was no evidence of problems with the electronic throttle control system, despite the research of Southern Illinois University professor David Gilbert that demonstrated such problems. However, Toyota may be avoiding looking closely at its electronic throttle system because it’s afraid of what it might find. A Massachusetts consulting firm, Safety Research and Strategies, is taking a broader view of the unintended acceleration problems. Its president, Sean Kane, said, “You can’t ignore the fact that when they move to an electronic throttle control, you basically see a fourfold increase in complaints.” Toyota's investigation has focused on information gathered by vehicles' onboard data recorders, which are activated by crashes violent enough to cause the airbag to deploy. But Kane pointed out that these recorders rely on “the same sensing system that is unable to detect the failure to begin with,” so they couldn't prove that a car didn't accelerate suddenly on its own. And Toyota itself has argued in court cases that its onboard data recorders should not be used as reliable sources of evidence.

As a southern Illinois auto accident attorney, I find the suggestion that Toyota may be purposely avoiding looking at its electronic throttle control very troubling. Between Professor Gilbert's account of Toyota's possible attempts to quash his research into its electronics, and Toyota's own description of the onboard data recorders as unreliable, it seems clear that those who have been harmed by automobiles with runaway acceleration problems should keep pushing for real answers. They should also discuss with a St. Louis car crash lawyer how they might pursue compensation for any harm they have suffered as a result of Toyota's failure to warn consumers or investigate the cause of defects in their vehicles.

Continue reading "Toyota Admits Validity of Sudden Acceleration Claims Involving Pedals and Floor Mats" »

As a southern Illinois auto accident attorney, I was very interested in a recent story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about Toyota's alleged attempts to intimidate a Southern Illinois University automotive technology professor and suppress his research into Toyota's runaway acceleration problems. Toyota has donated cars as well as money to SIU, and the company may have used its standing to pressure SIU administrators to stop Professor David Gilbert from publicizing his worrisome findings. Knowing how many people have been hurt and how many more are afraid that their cars might suddenly accelerate, these allegations would be unfortunate, if proven, both for the safety of the driving public and for Toyota’s own financial security.

In January, Gilbert discovered that he could cause runaway acceleration in a Toyota Avalon by manipulating its electronics. When he did so, the car's computer did not switch over to a fail-safe mode that would allow the brake to override the gas, as it should have. Gilbert went to Toyota with his findings, but after hearing what he had to say, they never got back to him. Gilbert felt he couldn’t stay silent, the article said, so he took his findings to the government and media. In response, Toyota sent some attorneys to meet with Gilbert and university officials about his testimony before Congress, a meeting that Gilbert said "was meant to maybe intimidate me." Toyota also assembled its own group of experts to refute Gilbert's findings, saying that the conditions under which he produced the runaway acceleration could never happen on an actual road. SIU's then-chancellor Sam Goldman also received an email from a man who said he was an SIU alumnus and a Toyota Motor Sales employee, complaining that Gilbert should be fired for making what he called false accusations about Toyota, and reminding him of his and Toyota's financial and in-kind contributions to the university. University officials apparently did their best to assuage Toyota and maintain the relationship.

In my view as a St. Louis car crash lawyer, it would be much better for the company to work with someone who could discover solutions to the runaway acceleration problem than to try to cover it up. If the allegations are proven, Toyota's alleged treatment of Gilbert and his work could actually hurt the company’s public relations and its financial bottom line. Evidence that Toyota passed up an opportunity to work on a potential fix for a serious problem could make the company look bad in all the lawsuits it's already facing over runaway acceleration. Not only is there evidence that Toyota had received over 2,000 complaints over the last decade and knew about the pedal problem three years ago, but Gilbert's story suggests that Toyota was more interested in denying any problem than fixing it. Unfortunately for Toyota, its customers may have a strong basis for a legal claim that it failed to warn drivers about the problem in a timely manner, in addition to a possible claim about a design defect. And if the automaker is found liable, it could be forced to pay its customers billions of dollars because of the seriousness of the claims and the huge number of affected vehicles.

Continue reading "Professor Alleges Toyota Tried to Quash His Research Into Runaway Acceleration" »

As the dust settles in the media over Toyota's recent trouble with "sticky" gas pedals, Chrysler and GM have now announced recalls of millions of cars. The more than 700,000 recalled Chrysler vehicles in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and other countries have potential problems that could be very dangerous, including doors prone to catching fire, brakes that might not work and sticky accelerators. GM's 1.5 million recalled vehicles have a heated windshield washer system that can catch fire, a system that has already been recalled once in the last two years. As a St. Louis product liability lawyer, I'm glad that these automakers are acting more swiftly than Toyota did recently to handle safety problems with their vehicles. But these recalls are still worrisome: If the same problems keep showing up in different companies' vehicles, how can consumers choose a vehicle that's safe?

The recall of 25,334 2007 Chrysler Jeep Compass and Dodge Caliber vehicles comes after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated five complaints of sticky gas pedals. The gas pedal assemblies were built by the same company -- CTS Corp. of Elkhart, Indiana -- that produced the 2.3 million pedal assemblies recalled by Toyota in late January. In the complaints about the pedals, drivers said that the pedals did not return to the idle position after drivers released them, and four drivers found parts from the assembly lying on the floor of the driver's side of the vehicle. The NHTSA discovered that the pedals' bearing housing was too large, and Chrysler said that this problem only existed in cars built between March 7 and May 19, 2006.

Chrysler told the NHTSA that it did not think the pedal problem was a safety defect since the vehicles have brake-override software. But in the wake of Toyota's gas pedal problems, the NHTSA and two congressional panels continue to investigate whether the electronic system that controls the pedals is to blame for the defects, rather than the pedals themselves or the loose floor mats that had been blamed by Toyota and, more recently, Ford.

Along with faulty accelerators found in three different companies' cars, vehicles from at least two different companies may pose fire risks as well. GM recalled 1.5 million Buicks, Cadillacs, Hummers, Chevrolets and Saturns because of an unfixable problem with a heated windshield washer system that had caused at least five fires. GM plans to disable the heating mechanism and give each owner $100 as compensation for the loss of the feature and, Center for Auto Safety executive director Clarence Ditlow suggests, to derail any potential class-action lawsuits over the problem. Chrysler is recalling Chrysler Town and Country minivans and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans for their own fire risks from short circuits in the electrical system operating the sliding door latch.

After Toyota's heavily publicized problems, many consumers thought they were being smart by choosing American cars that didn't have the same sticky pedal problems that Toyotas did. Now it seems harder to tell which cars are safe. A few months ago, I wrote about the ways in which liability lawsuits forced auto makers to make safer cars. As a Missouri automotive defect attorney, I help drivers who expected that their cars would be safe, but who got hurt because the cars had defects that they couldn't have known about. Drivers who get hurt because of flaws in their vehicle's design can work with an experienced product liability attorney to determine whether the automaker is liable. If so, drivers can sue the auto maker to pay for their medical costs, lost past and future wages, and pain and suffering. It's important to speak with a lawyer right away if you're in this situation, as there are time limits on lawsuits, and if you wait too long, you may not be able to sue.

Continue reading "Recalls for Sticky Gas Pedals and Fire Risks Spread to Multiple Automakers" »

A recent news story from Kansas City about a frightening accident at an elementary school caught my attention s a Missouri personal injury lawyer. A six-year-old boy was nearly smothered in an inflatable obstacle course at a school carnival. The Kansas City Star reports that he remained hospitalized the day after the incident occurred. This story is important because it incident reminds us that young children need careful supervision at all times: unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among all children over age one in the United States. I hope that this child will recover quickly and fully, and that the school and the company that provided the inflatable play area think carefully about making sure children stay safe while they're at a school event.

Fun Services of Kansas City provided an inflatable obstacle course and other play equipment for the school carnival at Lakewood Elementary School on May 13. Police learned that two children approached a Fun Services employee around 8:30 p.m. to inform him that the boy was stuck between two parts of the obstacle course. Meanwhile, the mother of the boy had approached a Fun Services employee to say that two older children were playing inappropriately on the obstacle course, and that she had disciplined them herself. It was then that the employee told her that a child was not breathing, and she found out that it was her own son. A Fun Services employee pulled the boy out and Clay County sheriff's officials who were at the carnival performed CPR. The boy did begin to breathe on his own, but on the ambulance ride to Children's Mercy Hospital, his condition grew worse and he had to be ventilated when he arrived at the hospital. A letter sent to parents the next day from school principal Suzanne Baker said that his condition had improved, but he remained hospitalized.

This situation would be frightening for any parent, but other details described in the news report give me pause too, as a St. Louis personal injury attorney. I'm wondering whether anyone was specifically asked to supervise the children in the inflatable play areas. School carnivals can be very chaotic and noisy, making it all the more important that responsible adults plan out in advance who will make certain that the children stay safe. The district undoubtedly had its own safety policies before this incident, and now, it has instituted a new policy requiring that this type of play equipment be inspected and pre-approved by the central office. Fun Services said that their employees always followed safety regulations and maintained their equipment so that it was in safe condition. But the fact that it was up to the two children to report that the boy was stuck in the inflatable obstacle course raises questions about whether the employees and the school district really did follow all safety procedures that they reasonably should have.

Continue reading "Six-Year-Old Boy Nearly Smothers in Inflatable Play Area at School Carnival" »

As a St. Louis automotive product liability lawyer, I was interested in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times that said lawsuits have spurred some of the most important automotive safety innovations that exist. Many of us are thinking about auto safety lawsuits, given the recent Toyota recalls. But lawsuits against automakers are not new at all. As far back as 1916, a New York man sued Buick when a defective rear wheel on his car caused an accident that lacerated his eye and broke his wrist. In the 1916 case, the New York Court of Appeals established an important legal precedent by ruling that automakers have a "duty of care" to ensure that their products are safe. Their award to the plaintiff showed that negligence would be punished.

Since then, legal and auto safety experts agree, lawsuits over automakers' duty of care have pushed car companies to develop better and better safety technologies. For example, designs for steering columns and dashboards had to be altered so that they would absorb impact. This was also true for other design elements that could cause injury during crashes, like gear shifts that impaled drivers or shattered glass that lacerated occupants. All of these improvements came after a 1968 ruling that held an automaker responsible for injuries suffered in a collision -- even if the design features in question did not actually cause the crash. That is, this ruling allowed injured motorists to sue over features that worsened an accident, creating injuries that might otherwise never have existed.

Consumers who sued automakers over their unsafe vehicles or parts have not just recovered financial damages. They also helped to send automakers a message that they could not ignore product safety and get away with it. An especially important lawsuit, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., concerned Ford's liability in the Ford Pinto's gas tank's propensity to explode rear-end collisions. Evidence showed that Ford was aware that the gas tanks were defective and prone to explosion, and that repair of the problem would have cost about $11 per car. Yet Ford declined to recall the Pinto. In light of this evidence, a California appeals court ordered Ford to pay victims of these explosions $125 million in punitive damages, later reduced to $3.5 million. As a Missouri automotive defect attorney, I am glad that the courts provide this avenue for holding negligent companies responsible for the damage they do.

The article goes on to cite many more examples of automakers' reluctance to address safety problems with their products over the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first with Toyota's current problems. As a southern Illinois defective car parts attorney, I’m disappointed that some companies continue to place convenience and higher profits over customers' health and lives. History has shown that this problem will not go away on its own. Drivers who have been hurt because of flaws in their vehicle's design can work with an experienced products liability attorney to determine whether the automaker is liable.

Continue reading "History of Automotive Safety Shows Lawsuits Play Important Regulatory Role" »

Recalls and image problems continue for Toyota, which has issued two more recalls since I wrote last week about the first unintended-acceleration defect lawsuits. This week, the automaker announced that it would recall third-generation Prius and 2010 Lexus HS 250h hybrids because of a problem with their braking software. That’s 155,000 vehicles in the United States and 437,000 worldwide. In papers filed with federal regulators, Toyota said the vehicles’ electronic anti-lock braking system doesn’t work as well when driven over rough or slippery roads. This can increase the time necessary to stop the vehicle, the Detroit News reported Feb. 9. It will also open the company up to further liability from angry customers and Missouri auto accident lawyers like me.

Significantly, the article said Toyota knew about the braking problem at least a month ago, but didn’t tell customers or regulators about it. The company has already readied a software patch for the Prius and is working on another for the HS 250h; both will be installed as part of the recall. However, the brake recall is just one of Toyota’s new problems. The automaker has also recalled 7,300 2010 Camrys because of a possible problem with a power steering hose. The hose is placed in a way that may wear a hole in brake tubes, decreasing the brakes’ effectiveness. This recall is not a result of complaints, but stems from an observation by an employee in Kentucky. However, the federal government may investigate power steering problems in 2009 and 2010 Corollas, after receiving more than 80 complaints from drivers.

As a St. Louis car wreck attorney, I am particularly disturbed to read that Toyota knew about the brake problem and even worked on fixing it before revealing it. The desire to have a solution on hand is understandable, but failing to disclose the problem takes away drivers’ options for dealing with it. Some drivers undoubtedly won’t mind, but others may have preferred to park the car for the time it took Toyota to prepare the software patch. That could be particularly true because the braking problem is worse in winter. As with the floor mat and brake pedal recalls, Toyota’s behavior leaves observers like me wondering whether it was as forthcoming as possible and acted as early as possible to save lives.

Continue reading "Toyota Issues New Recalls for Hybrid Brakes and Camry Power Steering Problem" »

Last week, I wrote here about Toyota’s recall of millions of vehicles that may accelerate suddenly and without the driver’s intervention. This is a major story for drivers and auto dealers, but also for Missouri car wreck attorneys like me, because we may end up handling lawsuits related to the recall and its defect. Now, it looks like that prediction is already coming true. According to a Feb. 2 article from Reuters, Toyota faces at least 10 lawsuits filed since November of 2009, all of which allege that the automaker sold a defective product, failed to warn drivers about the problem or both. They all seek class-action status, which means they’d combine claims from all Toyota owners affected by the defect. Depending on the circumstances, this could include tens of millions of drivers in the United States alone.

Toyota has taken a beating in the press for handing the unintended acceleration problem poorly. It has issued two recalls, blaming the problem first on floor mats and then on accelerator pedals, sending mixed messages. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that the automaker had received at least 2,000 complaints over the past decade, and knew about the pedal problem nearly three years ago. Legal experts in the Reuters article said this could form the basis of a claim that Toyota failed to warn drivers about the problem in a timely manner, in addition to a possible claim about a design defect. If Toyota is found liable in this type of claim, they said, it could owe its customers billions of dollars because of the seriousness of the claims and the sheer number of affected vehicles.

Reuters reported that four of the claims alone were filed on Jan. 29, and given that at least 19 people have died because of unintended acceleration, more are almost certainly coming. As a St. Louis auto accident lawyer, I think it’s only a matter of time before we hear about claims filed locally. There’s evidence that, at the very least, Toyota was slow to respond to the problem. At worst, the automaker could face charges that it actively tried to cover up the problem by blaming it on easily fixed mechanical parts rather than its expensive and complicated computerized accelerator system. You may remember the movie Fight Club, in which a major automaker decided whether to recall products based on whether it would cost more to fix the problem or settle lawsuits from families of people who died. This was based on a real memo put out by Ford in 1968. If we find that Toyota used similar math to calculate the value of human lives, it could take such a beating in court that it may never recover financially.

Continue reading "Toyota Faces First Lawsuits Connected to Unintended Acceleration Recall" »

Toyota announced news this week that made a major impression on Missouri car crash lawyers like me, as well as drivers and auto dealers around the U.S. As the Columbia Daily Tribune reported Jan. 27, Toyota has asked local auto dealers around North America to stop selling the eight vehicle models involved in its latest recall. That recall, of 2.3 million vehicles, addresses reports of sudden and unintentional acceleration in late-model Toyotas. The automaker originally blamed the problem on floor mats that were installed incorrectly and recalled 4.3 million vehicles to replace the mats. In the newest recall, it says flaws in the accelerator pedal cause the pedal to “stick” open.

During the original recall, some safety experts expressed doubts that floor mats were the cause of the unintended acceleration. Rather, they suggested that the problem could lie with the “drive by wire” system, which uses a computer rather than a lever to relate pressure on the accelerator pedal to the engine. Toyota denies this, and the newest recall doesn’t have to do with the computer system. Rather, the automaker says parts of the pedal can wear down and catch, opening the throttle. Toyota asked drivers with recalled vehicles to continue driving unless they feel that the accelerator pedal is slow to move or moves poorly. However, all of those drivers will be eligible for repair or replacement pedals when Toyota devises a solution, which is expected to be soon. A full list of the models involved in both recalls is available from the Los Angeles Times, and a Toyota press release about the recall is available here.

As a southern Illinois auto accident lawyer, I am pleased that Toyota is taking action on this problem. However, it’s disturbing to realize that by initiating the second recall, Toyota is reversing its previous stance that accelerator pedals are not the problem. If the automaker was wrong about that -- unintentionally or not -- what’s to stop it from being wrong about the driver-by-wire system as well? That is an important question, because the drive-by-wire system is installed in far more Toyota (and Lexus) vehicles than just the eight involved in the current recall. If Toyota is intentionally hiding important safety information just because it hurts sales, it’s putting millions of North Americans at risk of death or life-changing disabilities. Not only is this ethically unsound, but it could put the automaker on the wrong side of multiple defective auto part lawsuits.

Continue reading "Toyota Motor Company Stops Selling Certain Models as Part of Safety Recall" »

As a Missouri personal injury attorney, I wrote a while back about a recall of a major brand of strollers. Parents got a new issue to worry about Jan. 19 when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of 635,000 cribs because of strangulation and suffocation hazards. An article from CNNMoney.com said Dorel Asia SRL is recalling the drop-side cribs because the hardware holding up the drop side can detach, creating holes that can entrap and strangle a child. Babies can also get caught in the slats of the crib if a slat is damaged, the article said, posing another strangulation risk. This applies to stationary cribs as well as drop-side models.

Dorel Asia and the CPSC have received 31 reports altogether of the sides detaching from the crib. Those incidents caused six entrapments and three injuries as well as the death of a six-month-old boy in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In that case, the drop-side hardware broke and the parents tried to fix it themselves. The company and regulators have also received 36 reports of broken slats, which led to cuts and bruises for seven children and entrapment for two. The company stressed that the death was unusual, but safety officials are asking parents to stop using the cribs right away and request a repair kit at the company’s Web site or by calling 1-866-762-2304. The recalled cribs were sold at Wal-Mart, Sears and K-Mart for $120 to $700, depending on the model.

As a St. Louis personal injury lawyer, I hope parents notice this recall and take quick action. Like all manufacturers, baby product manufacturers are legally obligated to make sure their products are safe before they reach the market. If they fail, they are legally liable for any injuries that result. This is particularly important with baby products, because babies are literally helpless. Defective products affect people of every age, but because babies can’t call for help, product defects can kill them before parents even notice something is wrong. Replacing or repairing a crib may be expensive, but it’s nothing compared to the possibility of losing a child.

Continue reading "Federal Government Announces Recall of Cribs After Iowa Child Dies" »

With holiday gift-giving just behind us, I was pleased as a Missouri product liability attorney to see that the federal government is still concerned about toy safety. According to a Dec. 29 article from the Associated Press, toy maker RC2 Corp. has agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil fine for allegedly knowingly importing and selling Thomas & Friends toys with lead paint. Tests showed the toys, made in China and intended for young children, had lead levels above those set by federal law. The company and its Learning Curve Brands Inc. subsidiary admitted no wrongdoing. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency that handles safety of toys and other products, has provisionally agreed to accept the settlement.

Lead paint on toys is a problem because lead can poison developing children who ingest or inhale it over time. Lead interferes with the body’s absorption of minerals necessary for health and development, such as iron, calcium and zinc. In children with chronic lead poisoning, this leads to irreversible damage to the central nervous system, causing learning and developmental disabilities, aggression, hyperactivity, emotional control problems, loss of short-term memory and more. These effects are thought to be irreversible in children, which is why public health efforts focus strongly on prevention. RC2 recalled 1.7 million units of the Thomas & Friends toys for lead paint in 2007. The CPSC’s fine was so high because it believes the company knew its toys didn’t meet standards but sold them anyway.

As a southern Illinois defective product lawyer, I hope the CPSC is wrong -- but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was right. You may recall that 2007 and 2008 saw multiple recalls of toys with lead paint, many of them made in China. At that time, media reports explained that Chinese-made products are cheaper, but Chinese safety standards are relaxed and easily broken. This allows U.S. companies to make their products overseas for very cheap, but their products may not meet basic safety standards in our country. An unscrupulous company might be happy to make that trade-off if profit is its only goal. Unfortunately, the series of lead recalls showed that too many companies either did not pay attention to this issue or cynically chose to place profits over the safety of small children.

Continue reading "Illinois Manufacturer Agrees to Pay $1.25 Million Fine for Selling Toys With Lead Paint" »

With holiday gift-giving just behind us, I was pleased as a Missouri product liability attorney to see that the federal government is still concerned about toy safety. According to a Dec. 29 article from the Associated Press, toy maker RC2 Corp. has agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil fine for allegedly knowingly importing and selling Thomas & Friends toys with lead paint. Tests showed the toys, made in China and intended for young children, had lead levels above those set by federal law. The company and its Learning Curve Brands Inc. subsidiary admitted no wrongdoing. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency that handles safety of toys and other products, has provisionally agreed to accept the settlement.

Lead paint on toys is a problem because lead can poison developing children who ingest or inhale it over time. Lead interferes with the body’s absorption of minerals necessary for health and development, such as iron, calcium and zinc. In children with chronic lead poisoning, this leads to irreversible damage to the central nervous system, causing learning and developmental disabilities, aggression, hyperactivity, emotional control problems, loss of short-term memory and more. These effects are thought to be irreversible in children, which is why public health efforts focus strongly on prevention. RC2 recalled 1.7 million units of the Thomas & Friends toys for lead paint in 2007. The CPSC’s fine was so high because it believes the company knew its toys didn’t meet standards but sold them anyway.

As a southern Illinois defective product lawyer, I hope the CPSC is wrong -- but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was right. You may recall that 2007 and 2008 saw multiple recalls of toys with lead paint, many of them made in China. At that time, media reports explained that Chinese-made products are cheaper, but Chinese safety standards are relaxed and easily broken. This allows U.S. companies to make their products overseas for very cheap, but their products may not meet basic safety standards in our country. An unscrupulous company might be happy to make that trade-off if profit is its only goal. Unfortunately, the series of lead recalls showed that too many companies either did not pay attention to this issue or cynically chose to place profits over the safety of small children.

Continue reading "Illinois Manufacturer Agrees to Pay $1.25 Million Fine for Selling Toys With Lead Paint" »

As a St. Louis miniblinds injury attorney, I was disappointed to see that a child’s death has prompted yet another recall of a brand of window blinds. According to a Nov. 30 article in USA Today, two-year-old Thapelo Kwofe died in Maryland after he got tangled up in window cords. The newspaper said the incident prompted a safety alert by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency responsible for the safety of most consumer products. In the November alert, the CPSC recommended for the first time that parents, grandparents and others install cordless window treatments everywhere that children live or might visit. If this isn’t possible, the agency recommends cutting cords that form a loop, raising cords out of children’s reach and moving furniture away from windows.

The danger of window cords is so well established that the CPSC lists them among the top five dangers in the home. The agency estimates that one child a month dies by strangling in window coverings, and a spokesman said that manufacturers have recalled five million window treatments in the past few months. The problem stems from the cords that connect blind slats as well as the cords used to operate window treatments. Young children who don’t understand the danger can easily become entangled in the blind cords. Once they are, they are often unable to cry for help, which means adults in the next room may not notice until it’s too late. The CPSC has issued at least three safety alerts in the past, as well as two retrofitting programs in cooperation with the Window Covering Safety Council, an industry group. Unfortunately, those retrofitting programs did not always eliminate the danger, and the window covering industry did not stop making products with dangerous cords.

I hope this most recent safety alert changes that trend. Window blind strangulation accidents are easily preventable, yet we lose one American child a month this way. Parents certainly can and should take action of their own to prevent strangulation accidents, but manufacturers could easily fix the problem in newer treatments by changing their designs to eliminate loops and make strings hard for toddlers to reach. Like all manufacturers, window treatment manufacturers have a legal responsibility to offer only products that are safe to use for their intended purpose. When products don’t measure up, and someone is killed or seriously injured as a result, victims have the right to sue the manufacturer for all of the costs and damages the shoddy product caused. As a Missouri dangerous window covering attorney, I have handled numerous such cases on behalf of families who lost children or suffered serious injuries because of dangerous miniblinds.

Continue reading "Toddler’s Death Prompts Another Recall of Window Blinds Posing Strangulation Hazard" »

As a Missouri defective product lawyer, I was very interested when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of Maclaren strollers Nov. 9. Maclaren, a British manufacturer of high-end baby products, agreed to recall ten years’ worth of umbrella strollers after the CPSC received reports of at least 12 children who had lost fingertips because their fingers were caught in the hinges of the folding stroller. (Families that own the strollers can find more information about the recall and keeping their children safe at Maclaren’s Web site or by calling 1-877-688-2326.) A few days later, on Nov. 12, the New York Post reported that the manufacturer had known about the flaw since at least 2004 but didn’t warn consumers or regulatory agencies.

The recall covers every Maclaren stroller sold in the United States since 1999, which comes out to about a million strollers from several lines. According to the Post, about half of those strollers were sold after Maclaren learned about the problem through a lawsuit filed by a Connecticut woman whose toddler lost his right pinky. Jane DeWinter was at a store, testing the one-handed folding and unfolding mechanism offered by Maclaren, when her 23-month-old son Carlos stuck his hand in the hinge. Despite two surgeries, doctors couldn’t reattach the finger. A safety engineer testified at the DeWinters’ trial that the scissor-like hinge design violates federal safety guidelines for children’s products. He also said Maclaren had a legal obligation to report the incident to the federal government. According to the Post, the manufacturer did not report the flaw, setting it up for a potential $1 million in fines.

The newspaper said that Maclaren argued that the DeWinters’ accident was the mother’s own fault for failing to watch her son’s hands. As a St. Louis product defects attorney, I can confirm that consumers do have a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable dangers in products. However, this doesn’t excuse manufacturers from knowingly designing children’s products that are not safe to use around children. It’s not news that children young enough to be in strollers are not very sophisticated about the dangers of hinges, electricity, small objects and other things adults use regularly. That’s why federal law requires no choking hazards in toys for children under a certain age, and why we don’t hold children responsible for failing to avoid dangers that are obvious to adults. It’s not hard to foresee that a scissor-like hinge within grabbing distance might pose a threat to small children, especially if it’s designed to be opened and closed one-handed -- inviting use by distracted, busy adults.

Continue reading "High-End Manufacturer Recalls Umbrella Strollers for Finger Amputation Risk" »

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about a Los Angeles Times report on the recall of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Officially, the recall is because of defective floor mats that can cause accelerators to get stuck open, causing unintentional acceleration that can propel the vehicle uncontrollably and cause serious accidents. A total of 19 deaths have been reported because of this safety flaw. In the older post, I wrote that the Times suggested advanced features in newer vehicles -- or problems with those features -- may have caused or exacerbated some of the problems. On Nov. 8, the newspaper made an even more disturbing report suggesting that regulators may not have investigated the problem thoroughly.

Since 2001, the Times said, more than 1,000 vehicle owners have reported unintended acceleration events to Toyota or to federal regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The complaints triggered eight investigations, which ultimately ended in two recalls affecting a combined total of 85,000 vehicles. However, the Times charged, NHTSA and Toyota officials responsible for investigating safety problems systematically excluded numerous reports because of how they were written, or because reports didn’t match the agencies’ ideas about how the vehicles performed. This made the problem look much smaller than some say it actually is, the newspaper said. As a result, a serious safety problem that may have existed as early as the 2001 model year is only now being addressed.

For example, the NHTSA threw out reports in which owners didn’t speculate on the cause of the problem. The agency also discarded incident reports saying that brakes didn’t stop the vehicle, because its official position is that brakes always overcome engines. Toyota itself, in reports submitted to the NHTSA, excluded reports of acceleration lasting more than a few seconds because it believed its vehicle design made this impossible. Selective exclusions like these allowed the NHTSA to close at least five investigations for “not enough reported problems.” This included an investigation of Lexus vehicles in which the agency discarded 36 out of 37 reports. The newspaper included several anecdotes from Toyota and Lexus owners who experienced the problems firsthand, including a retired engineer who lost his wife of 46 years when his 2005 Camry accelerated over a cliff in central California.

As a St. Louis car crash attorney, I am concerned about what this could mean for the millions of Toyota owners in Missouri and southern Illinois, and around the United States. If federal regulators failed to thoroughly investigate this problem -- whether the problem was intentional or not -- they may have left millions of people exposed to these extremely dangerous acceleration accidents. In fact, if problems with the vehicles’ on-board computers or mechanics are the real culprit, rather than floor mats, nearly every late-model Toyota and Lexus is impossible to make safe without extensive retrofitting. That means millions of Americans are exposed to deadly accidents that strike at random times, and regardless of how safe the driver might be. It also means that Toyota and Lexus owners may need to garage their vehicles in order to avoid catastrophic crashes, an expensive and inconvenient proposition.

Continue reading "Regulators Failed to Consider Many Cases of Unintended Acceleration in Toyotas" »

As a Missouri defective automotive product attorney, I had already heard about Toyota Motor Corp.’s safety recall of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles. This recall, the largest in Toyota’s history, was announced after the automaker and federal regulators found that floor mat problems could cause the accelerator pedal to jam while open. (Toyota and Lexus owners can check Toyota’s press release for information on how to stay safe.) Regulators believe the problem has caused at least five fatal crashes and hundreds of other incidents, including a crash in suburban San Diego that killed an off-duty Highway Patrol officer and three family members. But an Oct. 18 article in the Los Angeles Times said the problem may be exacerbated by problems with electronic systems in the vehicles.

According to the article, in fact, the systems that pose the problems tend to be newer and may even be selling points. For example, most people in an uncontrollable speed situation think first about braking -- but modern vehicles have power-assisted brakes, which draw vacuum power from the engine. When the throttle is open all the way, that vacuum power disappears, and the power brake feature goes with it. Similarly, Toyota suggests that drivers turn off their engines when accelerating out of control. In a key-operated vehicle, drivers can turn the key to off/ACC, but this leaves them without power steering or brakes. And if they take the key out, it will lock the steering wheel. Meanwhile, newer vehicles with push-button starts require the drivers to hold the button down for three seconds to stop the engine (and remove power steering and brakes), which is a long time when your vehicle is out of control. And shifting into neutral, another Toyota solution, can be difficult and confusing in vehicles with “automanual” shifters.

I applaud Toyota for taking action on this issue, rather than actively trying to cover it up or blame after-market use. But as a southern Illinois product defects lawyer, I wonder whether it acted as quickly as it could have. The San Diego crash was at least the fifth fatal crash caused by this issue in two years, according to the Times, and federal agencies have opened nine investigations into sudden accelerations in Toyota vehicles since 2000. And the article noted that some have criticized Toyota’s lack of a fail-safe mechanism in its computerized engine for nearly 10 years. Speeding, even voluntary speeding, has been a safety issue for decades; it’s not hard to predict that involuntary, uncontrolled speeding could be deadly. To save lives, manufacturers have a responsibility to come clean to the public as soon as reasonably possible.

Continue reading "More Than Floor Mats May Underlie Toyota Safety Recall of 3.8 Million Vehicles" »

Used Chevy Impalas sold by rental company Enterprise Rent-A-Car were missing a standard safety feature, the Kansas City Star reported Aug. 15. Side air bags were standard on Impalas sold to consumers between 2006 and 2008, the article said -- but Enterprise asked the manufacturer to delete that option when it placed its order, as a cost-saving measure. When the cars were later retired from the fleet and sold as used cars, the Star reported, consumers may have mistakenly believed they came with the same standard equipment other Impalas had. Furthermore, the newspaper found that hundreds of online advertisements by Enterprise incorrectly touted the cars as having front and rear side air bags.

Safety experts consider side curtain air bags important because side-impact crashes are the second deadliest kind of crash. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, side-impact crashes caused 17.4% of all fatal crashes in 2007, second only to head-on crashes (32.2% of fatal crashes). And according to the Star article, studies have found that side air bags with head protection reduce drivers’ deaths by 45% in driver-side collisions. Side air bags are not federally required, as front air bags are, but observers expect side air bags to be near-universally standard soon, in order to comply with stricter federal side-impact safety rules taking effect Sept. 1.

According to the article, Enterprise ordered about 66,000 Impalas nationwide without the side air bags. This did not violate federal safety standards, the company said, and helped save $175 per car, for a total of $11.5 million. Nonetheless, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization funded by auto insurance companies, called the decision “astounding.” He noted that used-car buyers researching safety ratings could be misled, because cars are rated according to their standard safety features, and suggested that Enterprise’s decision could provoke numerous car accident lawsuits in Missouri and around the U.S. He and another safety expert said deleting a standard safety feature is not a practice they’d ever heard of before.

In response to the article, Enterprise pulled the incorrect advertisements off its Web site and said it planned to correct the information. It also said it would write to the owners of the 745 Impalas it had already sold to explain the problem and offer to buy the cars back at $750 over their Kelly Blue Book value.

As a St. Louis car crash lawyer, I have read a lot of the research into the dangers of side-impact crashes. They are considered extremely dangerous, in part because they can cause jagged metal and broken glass to protrude into the passenger area of the car, endangering all the occupants nearby. They can also trigger a rollover accident, which throws occupants around the inside of the vehicle or out of it, exposing them to head injuries and spinal cord damage that can leave them permanently disabled. Parents and others concerned about safety may well want to look up which vehicles contain side air bags before renting or buying -- but when Enterprise and other sellers provide misleading information, consumers can’t make well-informed decisions. If they are later involved in a serious accident and discover that they’re missing the air bags they thought they had, the law says they may hold the sellers legally liable for their injuries.

Continue reading "Newspaper Investigation Finds Rental Car Company Advertised Cars Had Side Airbags When They Did Not" »

Victims of a fatal a rear-end crash can have a new trial in their Missouri product liability lawsuit, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled May 5. According to the Associated Press, the court said misbehavior by attorneys for Ford tainted the trial, entitling motorist Michael Nolte and the family of Trooper Michael Newton to a new trial. The decision is also seen as a victory for law enforcement officers and families who have long contended that Ford Crown Victorias -- vehicles commonly used as police cars -- are unreasonably likely to explode into flames when rear-ended.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened to Nolte and Newton in 2003. Newton, the state trooper, had pulled Nolte over for a traffic violation and put him in the trooper’s car on the shoulder of Interstate 70. When they were rear-ended by a pickup truck, the cruiser burst into flames, killing Newton and injuring Nolte before he could be pulled from the fire. Newton’s family and Nolte sued Ford, alleging that Ford’s vehicle design was defective because it placed the fuel tank behind the back axle, making an explosion likely in a rear-end accident. They also sued the truck’s driver and his or her employer, a claim that has been resolved and is not at issue in the appeal.

At trial, Missouri product liability attorneys for the plaintiff wanted to introduce evidence of ten similar accidents involving rear-ended Crown Victorias -- four before Newton’s accident and six after. They were particularly interested in showing evidence that Crown Victorias retrofitted with shields on their gas tanks, as Newton’s was, still carried an unreasonably high risk of explosion. The judge ruled that they could only introduce the four earlier accidents, but a lawyer for Ford introduced evidence about the six others anyway. Because the plaintiffs were under the judge’s orders not to discuss that evidence or argue their side of the story, this put them at a disadvantage, the Missouri Supreme Court found. Thus, it said, they are entitled to a new trial.

Members of the law enforcement community have been concerned about problems with Crown Victoria gas tanks for more than 20 years. (The related Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car may share this flaw, though they are less likely to be used as police cars.) The concern is the placement of the vehicle’s gas tank behind the rear axle, which critics say make it highly likely to be punctured in a rear-end collision, causing an instant explosion. Within moments, officers and others inside the car can be surrounded by flames. By one estimate, at least 21 law enforcement officers and uncounted civilians have died in this way. In 2002, Ford retrofitted hundreds of thousands of police Crown Victorias with gas tank shields, but critics dispute whether this has helped.

Flaws such as this with the design or manufacture of a vehicle are a form of product defects, just like problems with toys or hairbrushes. When they cause or exacerbate a serious car wreck, victims in Missouri have the right to file a St. Louis auto product liability lawsuit holding the vehicle’s manufacturer legally responsible. In these lawsuits, victims can claim compensation for the loss of a loved one, a permanent disability or a serious injury, as well as compensation for medical bills and other costs of the crash.

If you and your family are in this situation, The Lowe Law Firm would like to help. Based in St. Louis and Belleville, Ill., we represent people who were injured by flawed consumer products throughout Missouri and southern Illinois. If you would like to learn more, we offer free, confidential consultations -- so there’s no risk to you in telling us about your case and learning about your legal options. To set one up, you can contact us through our Web site or call 1-877-678-3400.

Last week, the Consumer Products Safety Commission recalled about 1.6 million cribs because of defects that can trap and smother infants.

The recalls involve drop side cribs made for New York-based Delta Enterprise Corp. There are two hazardous defects, one involves a spring peg and the other involves missing safety pegs.

When a spring peg is not engaged, the drop side of the crib can detach. At least one child, an eight-month-old, has died as a result of the defect.

The recall also involves missing safety pegs. When the pegs are missing, crib locks can disengage and detach causing a hazardous gap. The CPSC reports that at least one infant has died. There have been two reports of entrapment and nine instances of disengagement.

The recalled cribs with the spring peg defect were made in China from and sold from January 2000 through January 2007 for between $33 and $200.

The recalled cribs with the missing safety pegs were made in Taiwan or Indonesia. They were sold at major retail outlets from January 1995 through September 2007 for about $100.

Parents are urged to immediately find other sleeping options for their children and to request a repair kit.

If a child has been injured or has died in an accident involving a crib, we urge you to contact The Lowe Law Firm. The Lowe Law Firm will provide you with a free initial consultation. We can meet with you in our office, at the hospital or in the privacy of your home. Contact The Lowe Law Firm online or call 877-678-3400.

ATV's including the Yamaha Rhino have been alleged to have killed more than five hundred people in 2006. Twenty percent of the people that perished in these unfortunate accidents were children. Amid the ATV deaths, 146,600 people visited hospital emergency rooms due to injuries from the well-known Yamaha Rhino ATV within the same year. The information of the alleged incidents was found from information gathered surrounding ATV crashes. The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) gathered the information regarding the crashes of the alleged defective ATV’s.

Accidents involving rollovers with ATV’s are common with vehicles of this type. Many people use the vehicles to ride off the road in a more naturalistic setting. ATV’s can reach speeds of up to fifty-give miles per hour and some way as much as a quarter ton. Three-quarters of ATV accidents wind up yielding trauma or injuries to the head and spinal chord of its victims. Many people that sustain such injuries sustain life threatening and or lifelong impairments. Paralysis is a common side effect of spinal chord injuries in these types of accidents.

The Yamaha Rhino ATV is alleged to be one of the most hazardous vehicles of its type on the market at the present time. People that view the Yamaha Rhino in a negative light allege that the vehicle has narrow tires and is extremely top heavy making it quite hazardous to drive. These type of defects make it probable that the Yamaha Rhino will tip over while making turns even at lower speeds and while on even ground. Also, the legs of passengers are exposed in a manner that leaves them completely unprotected if a rollover occurs. People involved in rollover incidents on Yamaha Rhinos have allegedly sustained leg, ankle, and feet injuries. Generally, the bones are either completely broken or pulverized in the alleged crashes. Some people come away completely disabled or have had to have arms of legs amputated as a direct result. Usually if children are involved in a rollover crash involving the Yamaha Rhino, it is alleged that it is fatal more times than not.

The year 2007 brought about the implementation of offering modifications to safeguard the Yamaha Rhinos by its parent company. It remains to be seen whether the implementation of doors and more handholds will make the vehicles any safer. The company has allegedly failed to recall or give refunds to the owners of Yamaha Rhinos.

Pennsylvania has allegedly had the largest amount of ATV deaths in the nation since 1982. This information is part of the CPSC’s report. The states next in line with large amounts of ATV deaths are: California, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Texas. All states across America can lay claim to at least on death with ATV’s at fault. The CPSC has estimated that in 2005 there were 666 deaths due to ATV’s and they believe it is possible that number could be as high as 870 this year. Consumer advocates are working hard to implement policies that would safeguard children by prohibiting the sale of ATV’s for the use of children.

The Lowe Law Firm is familiar with ATV and in particular the Yamaha Rhino and handling product liability lawsuits against the companies that make them. If you need an experienced lawyer to handle your case anywhere in the United States, please call Jeffrey Lowe, 877-678-3400.

By Delsia Hartford and Jeffrey Lowe

The Yamaha Rhino is a prime example of the need for more regulation and safety measures when it comes to ATVs. Lives could have been saved if more controls were in place, particularly with the design of the Rhino. Complaints are pouring in, alleging that even at low speed and during turns on flat surfaces, rollovers occur due to a defect in the design—a high center of gravity makes the vehicle top-heavy.

In November, 2006 a 10-year-old girl was killed when a Yamaha Rhino tipped over on top of her. Police said three children were on the Rhino when it overturned as the driver, the girl’s 12-year-old cousin, tried to make a left turn while going down a hill. He tried to lift the vehicle off the girl, but it was too heavy.

Another near-tragic accident happened in Chino Hills, CA., involving four youths. Without permission from a parent, they took a spin in a Rhino and the vehicle swerved before one juvenile in the back seat jumped off. The driver then overcompensated, and the ATV pitched back the other way before it rolled over. Three of the youths were seriously injured.
And in Edmonton, Alberta, a 13-year-old boy, Wyatt Lyal Bauer, was killed while driving a Rhino, prompting a spinal cord surgeon to ask for a ban on people under the age of 16 driving ATVs and for the licensing of all ATV drivers. He had previously operated on a number of people whose backs were broken in ATV accidents. "We've seen a huge increase in the amount of ATV-related trauma -- not just deaths, but people getting buggered up,” said Dr. Lavoie of University Hospital.

Apparently Wyatt went around a corner on a hill, lost control of the Rhino and it rolled over on top of him. Friends found him about 20 to 30 minutes later; they lifted off the vehicle and tried to revive him. A helicopter airlifted him from the scene to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Dr. Lavoie wasn't surprised to hear of Wyatt’s death because he knows first-hand the dangers of mixing ATVs and kids. His own two teen aged boys were involved in two separate ATV rollovers. Neither boy was badly hurt, but afterwards they didn't want anything to do with driving an ATV again.

"We've had our scares with it," Lavoie says. "My kids don't want to ride that freakin' thing now. They're not interested."

ATVs are now so large and powerful that it would take a big, strong child to handle a machine such as a 450- or 660-cc Yamaha Rhino. "When it gets over-balanced, unless you're a big strong guy, you can't pull that thing back up," Lavoie says.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that consumers cannot sue the makers of federally approved medical devices for design defects in state court.

The decision was a blow to the family of Charles Riegel. While undergoing a medical procedure to unclog an artery, a catheter burst and seriously injured Riegel. He died in 2004.

Riegel’s family sued the catheter’s manufacturer, Medtronic, Inc. The family alleged the catheter was defectively designed and had an inadequate warning label. Medtronic argued that because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the catheter before it was introduced to the market, federal law preempted state court lawsuits.

In Riegel v. Medtronic, an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court concluded that state lawsuits that could impose requirements that differed from federal regulations were prohibited.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. She argued that when enacting federal laws governing medical devices, Congress never intended “a radical curtailment of state common-law lawsuits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices.”

Big business is applauding this ruling. According to the Associated Press, the health care technology industry is a $75 billion-a-year giant. This decision will further insulate big business from liability for their negligence. But for consumers – and for families like the Riegels – this ruling effectively prevents them from using one of the few tools left following an injury caused by a carelessly designed product.

The Yamaha Rhino is the subject of many lawsuits and claims because it is poorly designed. One has to wonder how a vehicle—any vehicle—would be approved for sale without doors, and other alleged design flaws such as being top-heavy and having tires that are too narrow. Regardless, that seems to be the case with the Yamaha Rhino ATV, a recreational vehicle that is racking up injuries and even death.

And based on performance, it might even be mis-branded. ATV stands for All-Terrain-Vehicle. However, looking at the unit’s troubled history, it appears that the ATV fails to live up to its name.

Introduced to the market in 2003, the Yamaha Rhino ATV appeared to be doomed from the start. Critics of the unit claim that it is top-heavy with narrow tires, which makes the ATV prone for rollovers.

And when that happens, there is little in the original design to keep limbs safely contained within the unit, as there are no doors. If seat belts are not used, there is a far greater chance that the occupant will be ejected fully, or partially from the unit—deepening the injuries, or even causing them to be fatal.

There are many heartbreaking stories connected to the Yamaha Rhino ATV, and given that so many ATV riders are children—well, you can guess what is coming next.

Thanksgiving was anything by thankful for the Vargas family in California, after 12-year-old Ashlyn Vargas was killed after her Yamaha Rhino ATV flipped on a turn. Ashlyn, who believed in seat belts but had forgotten to buckle up, was thrown from the ATV. However, critics say that the unit would not have tipped over in the first place had it not proven top-heavy, or designed with a narrow frame that served to exacerbate the problem.

Another tragedy happened in June of last year, when a nine-year-old boy from East Texas died after being thrown from a slow-moving Yamaha Rhino ATV. J.T. Crow, who was a passenger in a Rhino ATV driven by his 12-year-old sister, died from severe trauma to the head after the Rhino ATV rolled on top of him. The child’s mother said that the ATV was traveling at a slow rate of speed just a short distance from the house when the accident happened.

The Crow family is filing a wrongful death suit against the manufacturer, over the loss of their son.

Even though nether child was wearing a helmet in the foregoing case, others wearing full helmets and properly strapped in have suffered neck injuries, and have had limbs crushed and in some cases amputated after the lack of doors and window mesh failed to contain limbs and heads when the rollover-prone ATVs, as they have been described, fail to stay upright.

In September of 2006, the manufacturer is reported to have sent a letter to all Yamaha Rhino ATV owners warning that the vehicle was prone to tip when negotiating sharp turns. While many Yamaha Rhino ATV owners might fail to concur with this observation in view of experiences where the vehicle has been prone to tip even on flat surfaces as low speeds, Yamaha is reported to have made the case for seat belt and helmet use, and to keep limbs inside the vehicle at all times as, it is assumed, compensation for the lack of doors.

However, the physics and dynamics of a sharp change in trajectory, which given a rollover can happen in the blink of an eye, can have a dramatic affect on limbs and the neck, which can be jerked in various directions without the capacity for the driver to know what is happening.

Finally, in 2007 the manufacturer offered to retrofit all new and used Rhino ATVs with doors and additional hand holds. However, those modifications do not address the alleged design flaw, which sees the unit top-heavy and tip-prone.

Many critics are openly calling for a formal recall, and wonder aloud why it hasn’t happened. So far the manufacturer, according to best information, has yet to extend a recall, or extend an invitation for a refund.

In the meantime, spring will soon be here. Once the remnants of winter clears away in the snow States, often the first priority is to get outside and get into the ATV.

We can only hope that there will be no further injuries or deaths, before definitive action is taken.

Written by Gordon Gibb with contributions by Jeffrey Lowe of the Lowe Law Firm

Yamaha Rhino's are the subjects of lawsuits and claims throughout the country because of their propensity to roll over due to their narrow wheel base and high center of gravity. The problem is made much more serious because Rhino's which are all terrain vehicles made by Yamaha Corporation lack doors so when they rollover and the driver or passenger's arms or legs get outside the Rhino, severe injuries and amputations are the result.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the aftermath of a Yamaha Rhino rollover speaks volumes, given the number of people who have been killed or injured while riding in the ATV—many of them children.

A photograph of Ashlyn Vargas, a bright and effervescent 12-year-old who was killed when her Yamaha Rhino ATV flipped on top of her and crushed the teen. It was the day after Thanksgiving.

Then there is Matt, a young man who appears healthy and intact in every respect until he pops of his prosthetic leg, displaying the stump where is right knee should have been. He lost his lower right leg after the Yamaha Rhino ATV he was in, rolled.

Introduced in 2003, the Yamaha Rhino ATV proved immensely popular: imagine an ATV with seating for two, seat belts, a roll cage and protection from the sun. A suggestion for hours of fun.

But here’s what it didn’t have: Doors. A low center of gravity. A wide frame, and wide tires for stability. Suddenly the Rhino was earning a less-then stellar reputation amongst enthusiasts. One blogger posted this comment in September of 2006:

“They look pretty fun and bonus, two seats. A seat for the daughter and seat belts.
The only bad thing about them is safety. If you flip/roll one of them, say goodbye to one or both of your legs. They should put small doors on the sides to keep your legs on the inside in case of a rollover. Other than that…”

There you go. Back to Matt, who looks none too happy displaying his stump in the on-line photo.

Dwight could not be happy, either. While you can’t see his face in the photo, one look at his mangled left leg tells you that he suffered a great deal after only a few hours in his brand-new 2004 Yamaha Rhino side-by-side ATV. It appears as if the lower half of his left leg, at mid-shin, was shorn off but surgically re-attached. Dwight is said to have endured a lengthy hospital stay.

With room for two, and a shallow box in back, the Rhino ATV was marketed as part utility vehicle, part recreational vehicle. It looks rugged, with knobby tires and green in color, like a small Jeep. The term ‘4 x 4’ is stenciled on the rear panel, by the taillight.

But there are no doors—nothing to prevent limbs from taking the brunt of a rollover. Even if the operator were wearing a helmet and the supplied seat belt, which is recommended, there is little protection for an arm, or a limb to flail into harm’s way.

After years of accident reports and several deaths, Yamaha finally came to the table in October of 2007 with an offer to retrofit doors and a passenger grab handle to any Yamaha Rhino ATV, regardless of age and condition.

It is also understood that the 2008 models will ship with doors and grab handle factory-installed. However, those improvements do not answer critics who maintain the Rhino carries a center of gravity that is too high for safe off-roading, and a frame that is too narrow only exacerbates that problem.

Narrow, and top-heavy. A recipe for disaster, even on relatively flat surfaces, and at slow speeds.

“The slow speed my daughter was going when this happened—and I saw the tire tracks, it tipped really easily,” Ashlyn Vargas’ grieving father Primo, told KSBY 6 Action News.

Lawsuits filed against the manufacturer concerning the Yamaha Rhino ATV allege the unit is dangerously unstable.

Primo Vargas, featured in a media report, gets the last word:

“Don’t make the mistake I did. Find out what’s going on before you put your kid in any kind of vehicle like this. You could cost them their life and I wouldn’t wish this pain on anybody.”

This story was written in part by
By Gordon Gibb along with Jeffrey Lowe of the Lowe Law Firm in St. Louis Missouri