Reno Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

Toyota and Lexus floor mats causing unintended acceleration

Steve Klearman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:54:25 GMT

On September 29, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alerted consumers about Toyota and Lexus vehicles experiencing unintended acceleration due to the accelerator becoming stuck.

According to the NHTSA press release, floor mats in certain Toyota and Lexus models have caused the accelerator pedal to catch, causing rapid acceleration after releasing the pedal.

Toyota began mailing letters to owners of potentially affected vehicles. For the time being, NHTSA and Toyota urge vehicle owners to take out any removable floor mats. The mats should not be replaced with any other mat.

Toyota and Lexus vehicles affected by this consumer alert are:

2007-2010 Camry

2005-2010 Avalon

2004-2009 Prius

2005-2010 Tacoma

2007-2010 Tundra

2007-2010 ES 350

2006-2010 IS 250 and IS350

Kurt Niland, of Beasley Allen Legal News offers more information on the recall and Toyota's remedial measures:

The recall is the largest ever for Toyota and the fifth largest recall of a consumer product in the United States.

Toyota formally notified the NHTSA of the recall in a letter on October 5. Owners of the recalled vehicles, which include eight Toyota models manufactured in the last six years, are being notified by first-class mail in a mailing that was sent out on Friday, October 30th.

This first mailing will alert owners to the potential dangers posed by the floor mats but will not announce a fix. When Toyota decides on a solution, it will contact owners about the availability of a free remedy in a second mailing.

Some early reports indicated that rather than focusing on the floor mats, Toyota was researching on-vehicle countermeasures such as a "smart pedal" that would tell the vehicle to ignore the gas pedal if the brakes were applied simultaneously. Such a measure, which is standard in most German-made vehicles and Chryslers, would enable drivers to regain control of their vehicles easily and instantly despite the cause of unintended acceleration.

However, retrofitting 3.8 million vehicles with smart pedal technology would be extremely costly. A modification to the pedal in the affected vehicles would cost as much as $440 million, according to a Tokyo Shimbun report cited by Reuters.

A recall involving redesigned floor mats, on the other hand, would cost about $100 million. New reports say that the latest Toyota recall will indeed be a floor mat fix of some kind.

Toyota's largest recall comes during its toughest financial time. The company expects to lose $4.7 billion for the year ending March 31 -- its second consecutive annual loss. The economic downturn and a poor exchange rate are obvious culprits, but according to Toyota President Akio Toyoda, the troubles run even deeper.

"Toyota has become too big and distant from its customers," President Akio Toyoda, he told journalists in Tokyo last month. "We are grasping for salvation," he added, after apologizing for an accident that occurred in San Diego last August, which investigators say was caused when a floor mat jammed the accelerator pedal in a Lexus ES 350. The horrific accident claimed the lives of a California Highway Patrol officer and three of his family members, finally prompting the massive recall.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Beware of Unapproved H1N1 Products

Steve Klearman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:53:53 GMT

The FDA urges caution when searching for H1N1 products on the internet because many unapproved H1N1 products purport to prevent, diagnose, or treat H1N1.

The FDA warns consumers of the potential danger of these products and cautions consumers that they should use only FDA approved products from licensed pharmacies. The potential dangers of using unapproved FDA products include an "increased risk of suffering life-threatening adverse events such as side effects from inappropriately using prescription medications, dangerous drug interactions, contaminated drugs, and impure or unknown ingredients found in unapproved drugs."

Currently, Tamiflu and Relenza are the only two FDA-approved antiviral drugs to treat H1N1.

With unapproved products, you can't be sure what you're getting. For example, the FDA, in monitoring the web for unapproved products, ordered a shipment of what was purported online to be Tamiflu. The FDA received an an unmarked envelope postmarked from India. The envelope contained "unlabeled, white tablets taped between two pieces of paper." The tablets were analyzed, and it was determined that they contained talc and acetaminophen (fever reducer and pain reliever). The tablets did not contain oseltamivir, the active ingredient of Tamiflu.

Among the products that the FDA has targeted:

a shampoo said to protect against the H1N1 flu virus
a dietary supplement said to protect infants and young children from contracting the virus
a "new" supplement said to cure H1N1 flu infection within four to eight hours
a spray that claims to leave a layer of ionic silver on one's hands that kills the flu virus
several diagnostic tests that have not been approved to detect the H1N1 flu virus
an electronic instrument whose sellers claim uses "photobiotic energy" and "deeply penetrating mega-frequency life-force energy waves" to strengthen the immune system and prevent symptoms associated with H1N1 viral infection

For more info from the FDA, click here

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

No "Heeding Presumption" in Failure-to-Warn Cases in Nevada

Steve Klearman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:32:10 GMT

The Nevada Supreme Court refused to recognize a "heeding presumption" in strict products liability failure-to-warn cases, in its June 4 decision, Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.

A heeding presumption is a rebuttable presumption that allows a fact-finder to presume that the injured plaintiff would have heeded an adequate warning if one had been given.

The Court's reasoning:

In Nevada, it is well-established law that in strict product liability failure-to-warn cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of production and must prove, among other elements, that the inadequate warning caused his injuries. Because a heeding presumption shifts the burden of proving causation from the plaintiff to the manufacturer, it is contrary to Nevada law. Rather than demanding that the plaintiff prove that the inadequate warning caused his injuries, a heeding presumption requires the manufacturer to rebut the presumption that the plaintiff would have heeded an adequate warning by demonstrating that a different warning would not have changed the plaintiff's actions. While other jurisdictions have permitted this shifting of the burden of production, we are unwilling to do so.

See Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc., 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 18 (June 4, 2009) for the full opinion.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

2 Cases of E. Coli in Nevada, Nestle Cookie Dough Recalled

Steve Klearman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:23:25 GMT

The Las Vegas Sun reports that 2 cases of E. coli have been reported in Clark County, Nevada.

This comes days after the FDA issued a warning regarding Nestle Tollhouse raw cookie dough products due to the risk of E. coli. The warning cautions those who have purchased prepackaged cookie dough products to throw them away. Consumers should not even cook the dough, as the FDA warns that the bacteria may still get on consumers' hands and on cooking surfaces.

As of June 19, 2009, all of Nestle's prepackaged, refridgerated cookie dough products have been recalled. The products can be returned for a full refund. No other Nestle products have been affected.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Joins Mission to Save Lives Through Fire-Safe Cigarettes

Steve Klearman — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:17:21 GMT

According to the National Fire Protection Association, an estimated one out of every four fire-related deaths in the United States in 2006 was caused by smoking materials (i.e. cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc.), making smoke materials the leading cause of fire deaths. Not only do smoking materials-related fires take lives, but they also cause millions of dollars in property damage each year. In 2003, New York adopted a fire-safety standard for cigarettes that required all cigarettes sold in New York to have low ignition strength. Tobacco companies were required to sell new "fire-safe" cigarettes that had bands around them to stop them from burning if not puffed on regularly. The standard became effective in June 2004 and roughly a year later there were already reports that the annual death toll for cigarette related fires had fallen by a third. Today, as many as 38 states have adopted similar fire-safe cigarettes standards, and Nevada is now joining the trend.

On March 3, 2009, Nevada legislators introduced Bill AB 229, seeking to set up the requirements and performance standards for fire-safe cigarettes to be sold in the State. The new requirements will apply to all cigarettes sold or offered for sale in the state but will not apply to cigarettes purchased by wholesalers before the effective date of the bill if the wholesaler can show that the Nevada cigarette revenue stamps were affixed to packages before the effective date and that he purchased a similar quantity of cigarettes during that period the previous year. As in New York, cigarettes will be required to have bands on them that act as "speed bumps" in the burning process. There are additional labeling requirements and all cigarettes must be recertified under the safety standards every three years.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Consumer Reports finds Big Problems with Car Seats

Steve Klearman — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:44:00 GMT

For more information and the full article, please click here.

A safety alert in the February 2007 issue of Consumer Reports says at least two of the 12 infant car seats they investigated -- all of which come with packaging touting federal approval -- should be recalled altogether due to doubts about their safety in a frontal crash. The magazine’s crash testers are investigating eight more seats after raising doubts about their ability to withstand a side impact. Asking "What if this were your child?", the magazine’s original article reported dummy "infants" violently twisted within their seats, thrown within the carrier from the base of the seat, or flying 30 feet across the laboratory.

Only Two Seats Pass Side Crash Safety Test

In a January 5 interview with National Public Radio, Consumer Reports deputy editorial director Kim Kleman described the problem: The federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires most new passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. to be able to withstand a head-on crash at 30 mph, a head-on crash at 35 mph and a side impact at 38 mph. However, the NHTSA requires that infant car seats be able to withstand only a 30-mph head-on collision. When a team from Consumer Reports tested 12 car seats using the more stringent standards applied to cars, only two seats protected their "infant": the Graco SnugRide with EPS and the Baby Trend Flex-Loc.

Corrections Don't Affect Call For Action

Since its initial testing, Consumer Reports has issued a correction to its side-impact tests, saying a consultation with the NHTSA suggested that the speed of those tests was not accurate. A Jan. 18 press release from the NHTSA said the group’s side-impact tests were simulated at 70 mph, twice as fast as they claimed. Until it has results from new tests, the magazine said in a press release, it must withdraw its report. However, the magazine stands by its call for a recall of the Evenflo Discovery seat, saying it did not protect its dummy even during the frontal crash test, and of the Eddie Bauer Comfort seat, which the testers found impossible to install properly. The Discovery has also been the subject of an NHTSA investigation, the magazine noted, after the agency received seven reports of the carrier coming apart in an impact.

"When the car seat does not meet the crash that the car can, that baby is actually the least protected passenger in your vehicle," Kleman told NPR. "We think that this is an outrage. We think that the federal standard absolutely needs to be raised for car seats."

Car seats sold in Europe performed better in the crash tests, Consumer Reports found, noting that European Union safety regulations are stricter than those in the United States and often include a side-impact test.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Update: Bush Administration Corporate Immunity Regulations

Steve Klearman — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 05:42:00 GMT

This is an update to the earlier blog, Bush Administration Passed Regulstions Allowing Corporate Immunity for Negligence, first published on January 23, 2009.

For the full article, please click here.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) last-minute regulation deals a shocking blow to consumers injured by railroads that transport hazardous materials, according to the American Association for Justice (AAJ). The final rule, designed to enhance crashworthiness of rail tank cars for transportation of dangerous materials, includes language that would preempt state tort law claims.

The regulation as finalized would likely prohibit consumers from seeking restitution in the civil justice system when injured by accidents involving railroad transportation of hazardous materials. For example, in 2002 an accident near Minot, North Dakota resulted in an anhydrous ammonia spill, the largest in U.S. history. As a result, local residents suffered from eye injuries, severe chemical burns, asthma and respiratory disorders. With this final rule, the Bush administration has tried to prohibit residents harmed like those in Minot from seeking justice for their injuries.

"It is pathetic the Bush administration would once again try to take away consumers’ right to justice with regard to railroad accidents," said AAJ President Les Weisbrod. "With just days left in office, the Administration is protecting corporations instead of looking out for citizens that may be injured, like those in Minot that suffered just because of the location of their home."

In the final rule, PHMSA and FRA dismissed comments filed last year by AAJ and labor unions, saying federal claims can be preempted if the railroad company exceeds the minimum safety requirements. This comes just weeks after preemption language was also included in a railroad regulation establishing security measures for railroads transporting hazardous materials. The regulations are in direct conflict with Congressional intent, which passed legislation which clearly stated that the Federal Railroad Safety Act was never intended to preempt state tort claims and that victims of Minot could receive justice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Target Unveils In-Store Recall Notification System

Steve Klearman — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:34:00 GMT

According to a December 22, 2008 ConsumerAffairs.com article, the large retail chain Target has recently started using an in-house recall notification system. Target and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are working together to make it easier for consumers to receive recall notices. Target has utilized its existing gift registry kiosks to supply interested customers with up to date recalled product information. The store has also posted signs informing guests of the new functionality of the kiosks.

Target will continue updating its website, Target.com, with all safety and recall information and will supply links to the CPSC website. In addition, Target will send e-mails to those consumers who purchased any recalled products on Target.com. Consumers can also sign up for e-mail updates on recalls directly from the CPSC.

For more information and the full ConsumerAffairs.com article please click here.

For more information about the CPSC, please click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Bush Administration Passed Regulations Allowing Corporate Immunity for Negligence

Steve Klearman — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:34:28 GMT

According to the American Association for Justice, in his last few weeks as President, former President Bush began passing regulations in the Federal Register that provided corporates immunity for negligence. These regulations could "weaken consumer safety protections and limit the ability to hold manufacturers repsonsible for defective and harmful products."

"The Bush administration has weakened consumer safety protections and put corporate profits ahead of consumer safety. We have seen it in everything from medical device rules, seatbelt and school bus safety requirements, railroad security, and prescription drug labels," said AAJ President Les Weisbrod.

Throughout all of its regulating, the Bush administration failed to protect consumers with regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) standard regarding roof crush resistance. The current standard was established in 1973 and was developed many years before the widespread popularity of SUV's. The NHTSA has delayed its final publication deadline for the newly finalized standard to April 30, 2009.

"This is a golden opportunity for the Obama Administration to show that they intend make consumer safety a priority," added Weisbrod. NHTSA’s pending proposal of the roof crush standard only increased the ability of a roof to withstand a force equal to 2.5 times the unloaded vehicle’s weight, a standard that would still result in killing or paralyzing most passengers involved in rollover accidents.

"We hope the next administration takes the time to make a strong roof crush standard that would adequately protect consumers and ensure the right to civil justice is protected," added Weisbrod. The pending rule also included preemption language which could have prevented consumers from seeking justice through the state tort system," added Weisbrod.

For more on this story and a comprehensive list of finalized regulations, please click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

AAJ Praises U.S. Supreme Court's Consumer Rights Decision

Steve Klearman — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:43:14 GMT

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Altria v. Good, the American Association for Justice (AAJ) praised the Court in denying immunity for cigarette manufacturers who break state consumer protection laws with untrue affirmations of lowered tar and nicotine.

AAJ President Les Weisbrod issued the following statement:

"Today’s decision is a victory for consumers and affirms that cigarette manufacturers cannot claim immunity from consumer fraud when they claim their products have lowered tar and nicotine levels, even though they do not. State laws have an important role to play in helping the federal government police false claims, and today’s decision supports that role."

"We hope that the court continues to look at claims of corporate immunity from the perspective of consumer health and safety and continues to support the rights of consumers to get justice through the courts."

For more on the AAJ please go to http://www.justice.org/.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman