Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - Liability

Runaway Toyota Vehicles Take Lives

Paul Thomson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:35:50 GMT

Recent reports of fatal crashes involving Toyota and Toyota-made Lexus vehicles are frightening! The crashes involve the cars accelerating uncontrollably, reaching speeds of 120 MPH, and leaving drivers with no ability to brake! The company's apologies seem sincere, however they are blaming the acceleration problem on the floor mat causing the accelerator to get stuck. This explanation fails to acknowledge life-threatening defects in the cars' overall designs, described in this article.

Toyota's designs have become increasingly computerized, making them more complicated. Many of the high-tech features designed for convenience have proven to be unsafe in emergency situations. The push-button start system is confusing and makes it difficult to turn the car off if it is accelerating out of control. The way the gear selections are arranged is also confusing and makes putting a runaway car into neutral challenging, especially in a high-stress emergency situation. The power-assisted braking system also fails to operate effectively when the car is traveling at full speed.

While removing floor mats is not a bad for a quick fix, Toyota needs to rethink their designs and include foolproof methods to stop an our of control car. The current design is clearly defective and life-threatening to anyone on the road! Aren't five fatal crashes more than enough to cause Toyota to acknowledge that their product is dangerous?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Thomson

New Legislation May Aid Consumers Harmed By Foreign Manufacturers

Greg Webb — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:00:00 GMT

Many products consumed these days, from children’s toys to medicines, are made in countries where, often, manufacturing standards are almost nonexistent. Therefore, when products have defects, it is extremely difficult to hold these foreign companies responsible in the United States’ Court System. The consumer would have to travel to the country and rely on that country’s government to serve processes on the manufacturer and translate all documents into that language.

When Congress returns from its break in September, lawmakers will consider legislation called the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act ("FMLAA"), which would even the legal playing field. The act would cover “consumer products regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"); drugs, devices and cosmetics that are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration; biological products as defined by the Public Health Service Act; as well as chemical substances that are defined by the Toxic Substances Control Act.” It would also require foreign companies have representatives in the United States where legal papers can be served. Surprisingly few legislators have expressed opposition to this legislation so far.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

New GM Accepts New Product Liability Claims

Greg Webb — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:00:00 GMT

In a bid to win court approval for a quick sale from bankruptcy, General Motors Corp. (GM) has agreed to accept liability for future product defects. Additionally, GM stated that it would change the terms of its proposed asset sale to address the objections raised by twenty suppliers and was working to create a “consensual” agreement regarding the future of a joint-venture plant with Toyota. These statements by GM demonstrate how the auto manufacturer and Obama administration officials have worked to counter some of the more controversial issues raised by the company’s bankruptcy filing. A group of nine state attorney generals, for example, voiced opposition to GM’s reorganization because it would have robbed consumers of protection against product defects under state legislation.

By August, under the GM reorganization plan, a new company would be created to buy the company’s best assets out of bankruptcy. This new company would be 60 percent owned by the federal government, 17.5 percent by the United Auto Workers union and 11.7 percent by the Canadian government and the province of Ontario. The consumers who have lawsuits pending against GM have objected to the reorganization plan since those injury and wrongful-death claims would have to be paid from the sale of GM’s most worthless assets. They further claim the automaker’s insurance would only cover product liability claims of up to $35 million per claim. This amount would not cover the claims of almost any of the lawsuits since many of the cases involved “devastating injuries” from alleged automobile defects.

GM has agreed, however, to continue paying “lemon law” claims so consumers would be entitled to a refund or replacement for defective vehicles. GM has also stated that the reorganized company, which will be nationalized with a $50 billion investment from the United States Treasury, will assume liability for future product defect claims as well.

While it is a good thing that GM will be back in business as (the New GM), it is a tragedy that there are thousands of product liability claims, including those for asbestos-related illnesses, that will effectively be kicked to the curb. All claims that existed before the "reorganization" are likely never going to be paid anything close to acual value. All of those that fall into this latter group probably feel as if the justice system has failed them. I am not sure how I could argue differently at the present time.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

GM Asbestos Claimants Seek Formal Panel in Bankruptcy

Greg Webb — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:37:39 GMT

Asbestos-injury claimants have asked for an official committee in the General Motors bankruptcy case, saying that the plan to sell the corporation might be unconstitutional since they’ve been excluded from the negotiations.

Lawyers for the claimants stated in a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York that the authority to approve GM’s plan to sell its assets would be limited without the participation of future asbestos claimants. The filing argued that there are due process concerns that limit the court’s ability to enter an order binding the rights of unknown future claimants in a reorganization of which they are unaware and in which they have not been appointed a legal representative.

Creditors are fighting the spinoff of Chrysler LLC’s core business to a new company owned 20 percent by Fiat SpA. Detroit-based GM has said in regulatory filings that its liability for asbestos-related legal claims was $648 million in 2008 and $637 in 2007. The claimants’ filing said that the magnitude of GM’s asbestos liability has been public knowledge and should have been considered by both the auto corporation and the Auto Task Force in their restructuring activities. Spokeswoman for GM Europe Karin Kirchner declined to comment.

The U.S. Trustee appointed an official committee of GM’s unsecured creditors last week, including two people suing GM for asbestos exposure and product liability. The automaker filed for Chapter 11 protection on June 1. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, companies with asbestos-related liabilities can funnel legal claims into a trust, although lawyers’ bills and costs of official committees in bankruptcy cases are paid by the company.

The GM case is In Re General Motors Corp, 09-50026, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Medical Device Bill To Be Introduced Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

Greg Webb — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:37:06 GMT

Democrats in Congress are moving to overturn a Supreme Court decision that allowed medical device manufacturers to be shielded from lawsuits after the Supreme Court Justices recently decided drug makers should not receive the same protection. Last Wednesday, the Court ruled against Wyeth’s contention that it should not be subject to lawsuits in state courts for Phenergan, its anti-nausea drug, because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)approved the medication. This ruling upheld a $6.7 million award to a Vermont woman who lost her arm when she was improperly injected with Phenergan.

Seizing the opportunity introduced by the Court’s decision, Democrats reintroduced the Medical Device Safety Act, which would allow similar lawsuits against companies that manufacture heart devices, replacement hips, catheters and other apparatuses. The medical device lobbying group quickly criticized the act, claiming it would impede medical innovation, create more lawsuits and result in higher health care costs for all Americans. However, many interest groups, including the AARP, trial lawyers and consumer advocates, support the bill. Many analysts believe this measure will soon become a law.

Let there be no mistake, this is a good bill and it needs to be passed. No one, absolutely no one, including corporations, should be immune from being held accountable for wrongful conduct, including negligence. For years the medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, among many other large business industries, have been seeking immunity from lawsuits. Some of them achieved partial victories during the last presidential administration through back-door preemption regulations via federal agencies. It looks as if the Obama Administration (and Congress) is proceeding on a more consumer-oriented track, looking out for the little guy. Hopefully, this philosophy will continue.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Corporate America Seeking Special Treatment - Immunity and Corporate Welfare

Greg Webb — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:14:27 GMT

In an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated: ““We understand the critical necessity of revitalizing the economy by restoring American jobs, encouraging the growth of U.S. businesses, and protecting the savings and investments of millions of Americans. However, we are concerned that the potential expansion of legal liability significantly impairs these much needed steps toward a national recovery.”

Attorney Andrew Cohen interprets those words to mean “Now that corporate America has helped screw everything up and led us into the greatest economic crisis since the Depression, we need to make sure that Corporate America isn’t aggressively punished for its misdeeds or legitimately thwarted from misdoing them again.”

The Chamber of Commerce has been pushing to rein in plaintiffs’ attorneys, deregulate industry and commerce, and nullify consumer protection laws, according to Mr. Cohen. Additionally, they and the Institute for Legal Reform pushed the Securities Exchange Commission to back off their scrutiny of deals and schemes, Congress to relax its oversight of the mortgage industry, and the White House and Justice Department to press for preemption which almost always helps employers over employees.

The Institute’s website does not mention the personal stories of victims of corporate greed or managerial inexperience, nor does it point out the lives and fortunes protected because of lawsuits against big businesses. Instead the website highlights “lawsuit abuse,” tracking the people who believe they have been sued unfairly. Mr. Cohen points out the rarity of a person believing they have been fairly sued.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys, who are one of the Chamber’s targets, are not responsible for the economic meltdown, but Corporate America is, Mr. Cohen believes. Therefore, he suggests the last thing Obama’s administration wants to do is shackle plaintiffs lawyers, stifle well-meaning state laws, or make it easier for businesses to avoid liability for their actions.

This writer finds this position by the Chamber of Commerce, an organization who has made it an ultimate priority to achieve near absolute immunity for all of its members’ intentional and/or egregious conduct – destroying innocent American citizens’ lives in the process - to be the height of gall and hypocrisy. What goes around, comes around. While capitalism is good, and our system of government, including ordinary citizens’ access to the courts, has been the envy of the world for decades, rampant and unbridled corporate greed, at the expense of the “little guy”, has put our country in the position it is in today. To grant corporations immunity for its actions, or omissions, is wrong; further, it defies the intent of our founding fathers’ to allow ordinary Americans to have access to the courts, and therefore to justice. Where else in the world can an ordinary person have equal footing to the most powerful persons and corporations? Why would we change this? We should not erode that right further, as the Bush Administration tried to do, and did in many ways, in the future. Corporations and those with vast financial resources already enjoy privileges that go far beyond what most have.

When Corporations want government help, or corporate welfare, it deems this conduct beneficial and necessary for the country's well-being; but when the working class needs similar help, it is deemed "welfare", or its equivalent. The Chamber's rationale is upside-down. We have witnessed, over the past months, Corporate Welfare at its highest form (witness the AIG "bailout" and the infusion of government money into the banking industry, to name a few, and there will be more to come, I assure you). Why do these corporations and their executives deserve more handouts and immunity for their behavior and choices? They do not - it is simply wrong and we must hope and encourage our new President and Congress to not bow to such pressure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb