Redding Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

GM Agrees to Accept Future Product Claims on Existing Cars, But Not Existing Claims

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:12:31 GMT

It was reported today in Bloomberg.com that GM has made concession in its bankruptcy proceeding to accept future injury claims arising from existing vehicles, but those already injured by the products will have their claims wiped out. This purportedly was done to lessen the objections to the bankruptcy plan, and to smooth the way for a potential purchase of the company. This concession contrasts with Chrysler's bankruptcy where immunity for all current and future claims arising out of pre-"New Chrysler" vehicles was extended.

This huge loophole still allows GM to avoid corporate responsibility for the injuries and deaths that their vehicles caused before the flight to bankruptcy. Those innocent injured and killed will lose all justice for the wrongs committed upon them for the perceived benefit of corporate survival. The cost of their injuries and deaths will be placed upon the American taxpayer in one form or another. How many times do these companies need to be bailed out?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Will the "New" Chrysler and GM Vehicles be Safe?

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:31:58 GMT

Jane Akre's excellent article, "Chrysler GM Throws Consumers Under the Bus," accurately details the surmise of injury and death claims against the "new" Chrysler and GM companies, once they emerge from bankruptcy. Taking advantage of this legal loophole, Chrysler and GM will escape responsibility for the dangerous cars, vans and trucks that they have placed on the road today, even if the catastrophy occurs in the future. The cars are ticking time bombs.

The impact of this immunity will also affect the safety of future Chrysler and GM products. The Federal government and automakers gather and use death and injury data to identify and correct defects. Such analysis constitutes an early warning system. If consumers can no longer file claims against Chrysler or GM, a key component of that early warning system will disappear. Additionally, the financial incentive to correct the mistakes will be gone. Why issue a recall if you have no responsibility for the harm that the defect can cause?

I think I understand now the purported aspiration of the "new" companies to "be leaner and meaner." This does not promote safety. This is simply unjust!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Chrysler's Ticking Time Bombs

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:37:35 GMT

As we posted earlier this week, Chrysler has emerged from bankruptcy freed from responsibility for all deaths and catastrophic injuries caused by their defective cars, vans and trucks. This means that many families who own Chrysler products may be driving around in vehicles that have dangerous defects that they don't even know about. If catastrophy occurs as a result of those defects, these families will have no means of recovering for their losses. With the backing of the Obama administration, Chrysler has been given immunity from liability. Hence, these families are driving around on ticking time bombs.

It is estimated that there are 40 million Chrysler and GM vehicles on the road today. GM is also in bankruptcy and seeks the same legal loophole. Historical data compiled from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration shows that 47% of all death and injury claims filed against auto manufacturers involve Chrysler and GM cars. In the last 5 years, 3,497 casualities were connected to problems with Chrysler cars and 15,284 connected to problems with GM cars.

On June 9, 2009, letters were sent to Chrysler and GM by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D/Virginia) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R/Texas), signed by 18 members of the 26-member committee, imploring the "new" Chrysler and GM to not abandon their legal obligation to customers injured or killed by one of their defective products. "The rights and responsibilities Chrysler [and GM] owe to its customers do not end with an arbitrary date."

We enlist all that are out there to write, phone, email, or tweet your congressman or senator to insist that GM and Chrysler accept responsibility for defective products that they sell, and remain accountable to those injured or killed thereby. This is not China!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Obama Backs Chrysler/GM Immunity for Dangerous Cars , Vans and Trucks

Todd Slaughter — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:04:21 GMT

In an extraordinary move, it appears that the Obama Treasury Department is backing a plan that allows Chrysler and GM to emerge from bankruptcy with complete immunity for all deaths and catastrophic injuries caused by their defective cars, vans and trucks. In the case of FIAT, this immunity would extend to this successor company of Chrysler, despite FIAT's willingness to accept the responsibility.

What does this mean? This means that if you own a Chrysler or GM product, and you or a loved one suffers serious injury or death because it was defective, you will have no way to recover for those injuries or losses after the bankruptcy proceedings are concluded. Sadly, you will only be able to recover the cost of the defective part under warrranty, as the Obama administration has only fought to protect your warranty rights, not your safety.

This is an incredible move that has no parellel in history. Typically, in circumstances where the company seeks to emerge from bankruptcy and continue in its business, a fund is created as part of the bankruptcy to take care of past and future claims. Such a fund allows for those truly injured by defective products manufactured by the company to have some level of recourse, though it may not be on a dollar for dollar parity with what may have been recovered in a civil lawsuit. Such a fund also provides benefit to the company in that the potential liability is essentially capped, and losses paid out are not reflected in the quarterly profit/loss reports. Another alternative is to fund the purchase of an insurance policy that covers these potential losses; i.e., move the risk to another entity.

Are you safe if you do not own a Chrysler or GM product? No. If a defective GM or Chrysler vehicle looses steering, crosses the road and hits you head-on, these companies are immune from liability. Interestingly, the "little guys" that manufactured the components of the car may have responsibility, but the "Big Guys" have none.

In the name of "economic recovery" are we turning the notions of product safety and corporate responsibility on their heads? With all the help the American taxpayer has given these companies, shouldn't they be willing to stand behind their products, and not turn their backs on taxpayers killed or debilitated by their blunders. As a good parent, what car do you counsel your child to purchase now? American? We are surprised by the administration's deaf ear on this subject. Will the same thing occur in health care?

For an excellent article see "Chrysler and GM Bankruptcies: Wiping Out the Rights of All Consumers Who Drive These Cars," published by the Center for Justice Democracy. (http://centerjd.org). Also in the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/fiat-would-have-assumed-v_n_212046.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Suit Claims Toyota's Defective Steering Component Caused Baby's Death

Todd Slaughter — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:18:10 GMT

EUREKA, Calif. - The Eureka Times-Standard reported on a lawsuit brought by a Hoopa family against Toyota following a fatal single-car crash that occurred on Highway 299 on Christmas Eve in 1997. The fatality was an 18-month-old baby. The claim is that the family did not receive timely notice of the recall of a defective steering relay rod. It is alleged that this rod, which connects the two front wheels, failed causing the mother of the child to lose steering control, run off the road and hit a tree.

In a letter sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2005, Toyota's North America subsidiary stated that 977,839 Toyota vehicles sold in the United States were involved. According to the letter, "under certain conditions where high steering effort and power assist are required . . . a fatigue crack may develop in the steering relay rod." The involved models included the Toyota 4Runner and Toyota Truck from 1989 to 1995, and the Toyota T100 from 1993 to 1998.

It is claimed that only 30 percent of the involved vehicles were recalled.

If you have one of these models and have not received a recall notice, we suggest that you immediately contact your authorized dealer to see if your vehicle is one of the recalled models. You may also want to have your mechanic check for any evidence of fatigue or compromise of the steering relay rod.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Chinese Hair Dryers Recalled - Makes You Want to Pull Your Hair Out

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:44:27 GMT

This week the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall notice, "in cooperation" with the manufacturer, of a hand-held electric hair dryer sold at Big Lots Stores in America. The Chinese hand-held Cool Shot Turbo Hair Dryer purportedly manufactured by "Style elements Hair Dryers" is being recalled for one simple reason, it does not have an American industry required immersion shock interruptor. This safety device prevents electrocution if the dryer falls into water. Such an event could cause immediate death.

This sleek and fancy looking hand held hair dryer is representative of what appears to be a growing trend in products coming from China and other Asian manufacturers. It has the appearance of a well made and "modern" product. But in its production, either through reverse engineering or complete lack of foresight, the manufacturer fails to include a cheap safety device uniformly added by American manufacturers. That safety device could prevent the death of a user, or a mis-user such as a young child.

I have noticed the same type of manufacturing practice in the field of ATVs recently. Many small "Motor Shops" seem to be appearing everywhere with loads of fancy and colorful ATVs for "all sizes" featured. The ATVs do not have any known brand name, and are offered at prices well below brand prices. The problem is that if they break during operation, there is little, if any, recourse. One client had a wheel spindle break, causing the ATV to roll several times, and causing injury. The distributor of the vehicle would only agree to replace the spindle. They weren't even interested in the cause of the failure.

I have said this many times, concerning many different products, but until there is a real potential for product liability responsibility at every level of the stream of commerce, from the manufacturer to the shipper, to the distributor to the retailer, or anyone else involved in getting the product to market, we are going to be continually inundated by these foreign manufactures with defective products which injure, without any recourse. It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Lasko Products Fined $500,000 for Failure to Report Fans Causing Fires

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:11:36 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has fined Lasko Products of Pennsylvania $500,000 in civil penalties for failing to timely report that their box and floor fans were causing fires. These fans were sold at discount stores between 2000 and 2004 for between $10 and $25. According to the Associated Press, 42 incidents of property damage or personal injuries were not reported to the CPSC until 2005, well after their occurence, a violation of Federal CPSC regulations. 5.6 million of these fans were recalled in 2006 because of an electrical motor defect which caused them to ignite.

This author is aware of at least one of these Lasko fan fires occuring in Northern California that caused substantial property damage and loss of pets. People that purchased these fans probably did not receive notice of the recall in 2006. If you have one of these floor or box fans, you should stop using them immediately. Take them back to the retailer where they were purchased to be returned. The recalled models were the Galaxy and Air King.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Atomic Skis USA Recalls Alpine Ski Bindings

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:39:04 GMT

Look outside. It's snowing! The ski resorts will be opening throughout Northern California with fresh powder. Let it snow, let it snow!

If you are an Alpine skier you need to check to see if you have Atomic ski bindings. Today, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (USPSC) released a recall notice issued by Atomic Skis GmbH of Austria that affects approximately 125,000 of these bindings sold in America between 1998 and 2005. The bindings have a tendency to crack at the heel, causing an unexpected release. Four serious injuries have been reported in the field.

To see if your bindings are one of the recalled models, consult the USPSC recall notice on these bindings.

If you have these bindings, do not use them and contact an authorized Atomic Ski dealer, or call Atomic Ski USA toll-free at 888.535.7555.

See ya on the slopes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Toymakers Responsible for Lead Based Injuries Despite Offering Safer Toys Now

Todd Slaughter — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:20:27 GMT

A U.S. District Court Judge in Los Angeles has now ruled that a class action against Mattel, Wal-Mart and other toymakers may proceed on allegations of manufacturing and distributing toys containing lead based paint, even though the products were recalled and safer alternative toys were offered.

The San Jose Mercury reported that the class action was brought on behalf of consumers that purchased these lead contaminated toys or toys with small magnets that could be swallowed by children.

The story in the Mercury did not identify the specific toys, but if non-lead alternative toys were so readily available, one must wonder why the lead-based toys were distributed in the first place. It is suspected that the toys were manufactured off-shore, and Mattel and others have not been scrutinizing or testing these toys as they flood into our market. The mark-up for foreign made toys distributed by U.S. toymakers and sellers is probably one reason why a jaundice eye is given to these imports. Hopefully, these American companies are learning something.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Large US Toymakers Agree to Lead Standards for Christmas

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:24:35 GMT

SACRAMENTO - The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that several of the largest toymakers in America agreed to comply with the Federal toy lead standards for the upcoming holiday season. The Federal standards, though adopted earlier year, do not take legal effect until February. In settling a lawsuit brought by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Mattel, Fisher-Price, RC2, A & A Global Industries, Cranium Inc., Eveready Battery Co., Marvel Entertainment, Toy & Investments, Kids II and Amscan agreed to stop manufacturing toys that do not meet the Federal lead standards by this Monday.

The manufacturers also agreed to contribute $500,000 to fund the testing of toys. If toys are found to have lead contents that exceed the Federal limits, the manufacturer is to notify the California Attorney General's office and the retailer. Interestingly, the agreement does not require the manufacturer to pull the toys from the shelves. In addition, the retailers named in the lawsuit did not settle and are not bound by this agreement.

This, of course, is a positive step towards the elimination of lead contents in the toys that are sold on American shelves. It seems to us that the amount offered for funding the testing is a drop in the bucket. This is particularly true in light of the vast number of foreign manufactured toys that inundate American store shelves during the holiday season. It is startling to see the number of toys recalled by the U.S. Consumer Protection Agency each week because of lead content.

Another disturbing development is that many, if not most, of the toys found with high lead contents are very inexpensive and are marketed to the lowest economic strata. They are found at "$1.00" stores and the like, and are often selling for less than $1-2. For twenty dollars, twenty different kids can be exposed to the toxic leads. Who is monitoring this?

The new Federal standard gives us hope, but enforcement is the key. Americans should be confident when they go into a store to select a toy for their child, grandchild, niece, nephew or neighbor that the toy is safe! What could be more basic? And yet, millions of lead containing toys continue to flood into our market. This is because there is practically no recourse against the off-shore manufacturers under current law. As long as Congress ignores this reality, these low-priced products will continue to fast-track into our stores and homes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter