Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

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" »

A recent column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch caught my eye because it underscores the importance of having an experienced Missouri auto accident lawyer involved in your injury case. Columnist Bill McClellan wrote Feb. 21 about Jen Dotson of Oakville, who ran into serious financial trouble after her health insurer refused to cover the cost of an operation intended to alleviate debilitating pain. Dotson was injured in a 2004 car accident that was not her fault. She had sued the at-fault driver, but her settlement was reached before she realized she needed the operation.

The column says Dotson was driving straight through an intersection when someone pulled out and hit her. The other driver’s insurance company paid for repairs to her car, but she was also left with chronic, severe pain from a condition called thoracic outlet syndrome, which is caused by compression of the passageway between the collarbone and the first rib. The pain was so bad that she had to quit her job as a travel agent and go to work in the family business. Dotson sued and eventually settled for enough money to cover her portion of her medical bills.

Unfortunately, the pain continued after Dotson’s settlement. She had two more surgeries -- one to remove a rib, and another for a nerve. Her husband’s employer-based health insurance covered both, but her pain didn’t stop and she was forced to take heavy pain medications. Finally, her doctor referred her to a neurosurgeon who recommended a surgery to implant a spinal cord stimulator. The surgery was a success, but her health insurer refuses to cover the cost -- leaving Dotson and her husband owing $72,900. They cannot pay this debt and are now afraid they’ll lose their home.

The column is about the health insurer’s refusal to pay, despite the surgeon’s claim that he called to pre-authorize it. This is an important and politically relevant issue, but as a St. Louis car crash attorney, I’d like to talk about Dotson’s original settlement. Most people don’t realize that you only get one opportunity to sue over an accident. Once you accept a settlement, you generally must sign a waiver of all future claims. That means it’s essential to include all claims of financial damage in your lawsuit, including claims for future medical care. Dotson and her injury attorney undoubtedly claimed everything they thought she needed at the time, but as time went on, it was clear that her medical needs weren’t over. In cases like this, I advise my clients to delay a lawsuit, as hard as that can be, until a doctor believes their symptoms are fully manifested can make a treatment plan.

Continue reading "Oakville Woman’s Story Shows Importance of Fully Claiming Damages" »

At 4:30 a.m. on November 9, 2007, Merck agreed to a purported $4.85 billion settlement. The agreement is 69 pages and has not yet been released publicly. At a hearing in New Orleans this morning the terms of the settlement were revealed.

(1) This is not a class action settlement. In order for a law firm to participate in the settlement, they have to agree to submit all of their cases through the settlement process;

(2) In order to qualify for payment under the Settlement a claimant has to prove: (a) Proof of ingestion of Vioxx for at least 30 days; and (b) Proof of having a heart attack, Ischemic stroke, or sudden cardiac death within 14 days of taking Vioxx;

Once a client meets these criteria they are guaranteed of receiving a monetary award under the settlement and the client goes to the assessment phase where they are awarded points or actually demerits for cardiac risk factors such as obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, hyperlipedemia, age, etc… The client based on the point system is then awarded a settlement amount by the claims administrator. This claims process is to be completed in 18 months, and if the client believes the points were assessed incorrectly they can appeal to a special master.

If the client doesn't qualify for a monetary award under the settlement, they can then certify that the medical evidence they submitted is all the evidence they have and they can have their case tried to a jury. There is also a requirement of 85% participation of all the cases filed, and the 85% participation requirement only applies to cases filed in the MDL, cases filed in New Jersey, cases filed in California and cases filed in Texas.

This certainly does not look like it will end the litigation, but it is the beginning of the end game, How it will play out will be determined in the next couple of years. Nothing moves quickly in the Mass tort business

A $1.5 million settlement was reached in a car crash for a teen who were seriously injured in a car accident following a party at an equestrian center where alcohol was served to minors. The state Act had taken effect 29 days before the accident under the Illinois Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act.

At the party, free kegs of beer were available to all guests and minors were not required to provide identification. After the girls left the party, the driver made an illegal left turn and
crossed the two southbound lanes where the car was hit by a tractor-trailer truck. The injured teen who was in the back seat, was thrown out of the car and suffered serious neurological injuries. The injury is permanent, restricts use of her left hand and leg. None of the other girls was injured.

This law imposes civil liability against persons over 18 who allow minors to drink, if a minor becomes impaired and injures or kills another. Prior to this law neither Missouri nor Illinois recognized what is know as social host liability. This law is a good step toward imposing civil liability on persons who serve alcohol to minors who then injure other people.

I practice law in both Illinois and Missouri and many clients are shocked to find out that they did not have a cause of action under Illinois or Missouri law against someone who provides alcohol to minors who then injure them. The law is based on the assumption that serving alcohol is not the proximate cause of the accident, but the person who caused the accident was the proximate cause. This new law in Illinois serves a good purpose and should be more broadly adopted in other states including Missouri.