North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer & Attorney : D. Hardison Wood : Toy Safety, Child Restraint, Car Seats

Tech International, a distributor based in Ohio, has announced that it is recalling 6 million tire valves. These tire valves were manufactured by China based, Shanghai Baolong Industries Co. The recall notice stated that stems could crack and cause a gradual reduction in tire pressure. Of course it is very difficult to figure out who has these types of valves on their tires.

"Tech International does not know the identity of any end-users of the TR413 valves and has no realistic method of determining the identity of such individuals. Furthermore, there is no realistic method for Tech International to identify the production dates of any specific TR413 valves," the company said in its letter to NHTSA.

There is a push for people to inspect their tires, valves for any cracks, and to check the tire  pressure.

  "Air loss at highway speeds may result in a tire failure and loss-of-control crash," said Sean Kane, president of Safety Research and Strategies.

Read the entire article found in the Detroit News.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Seat belts can save your life if they work. 90,000 2008 Toyota Highlanders and Toyota Highlander hybrids are being recalled due to the fact that the seat belts' locking mechanisms failing.

The locking mechanism on the seat belts apparently cannot secure properly when certain rear-facing child safety seats are used, which could cause the child seats to move, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported on Friday. Read More

If you have been affected by a seat belt failure or any other mechanism defect, please report it the NHTSA. If our law firm can be of  any assistance please do not hesitate to  contact us.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the obstacles victims of rollover accidents face is the stereotype that rollovers are inherently dangerous.  This isn't usually, and certainly not always, the case.  Rollovers tend to be very survivable, especially when compared to a high speed side impact collision or a head on collision.   The forces at play are dissipated along several axes in a rollover, whereas in side impact and head on collisions, the forces tend to operate in straight lines and along one axis.

Not to say rollovers aren't deadly.  There are approximately 10,000 deaths in the US alone per year due to rollovers.  Most of these are single vehicle accidents.  Roof crush and occupant ejection are the single biggest factors in these fatalities. 

Occupant ejection is minimized by the use of safety belts equipped with pretensioners (these devices were first introduced in 1981).  When searching for a new vehicle, especially an SUV or light truck, make sure to ask if its seat belts are equipped with pretensioners as these will decrease the likelihood of occupant ejection in a rollover event.

Roof crush, on the other hand, is not so easily fixed.  Maintaining occupant survival space is the first goal of successful engineering, yet too many of today's SUVs do a lousy job of this.  Look at this example of a simulated Ford Explorer rollover.  They will roll it twice, not unlike what would happen if the vehicle rolled at highway speeds.  Make sure you watch the full video.  On the first roll, you'll see the passenger side leads, and maintains its survival space, while the driver's side already shows sign of deadly intrusion.  On the second roll, you'll see there is no survival space left on the driver's side.

There is no way the driver walks away from this.  On the flip, we'll show you another test where a rollover seems hardly violent at all.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Due to the crashworthiness and products liability focuses at our law firm, we unfortunately hear about deaths caused by rollovers quite often and even more often deaths caused by SUV rollovers. The grief a family mist endure is heart wrenching. However, once in awhile we hear about or read about someone taking such a tragedy and doing something to move forward in a positive way. These stories provide a sense of hope and also keep the focus on working towards tougher safety in vehicles.

After everything that he has been through, Lee Wagner has decided to go for a walk. 

Not a routine stroll, but a 380-mile journey on a surgically repaired knee in an effort to raise money for the scholarship fund that bears the names of his two children. 

The walk will take him through Georgia and both Carolinas. As he walks, he will share his story, his wife Debbie Wagner’s story and most importantly, the story of their beloved children, Jillian and "Little" Lee Wagner, with anyone who cares to join him for a mile or two along the way.

Lee Wagner will walk because he wants to raise awareness about traffic accidents and SUVs.  He will walk because people grieve in different ways. He will walk because after four long years, “The pain is still fresh,” as he continues to search for moments of peace. Read the entire article

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Evenflo has announced a recall of  over 1 million car seats. Please ensure your child's car seat is not affected.

Make / Models :		Model/Build Years:
EVENFLO / 390 (DISCOVERY)		2005-2008
EVENFLO / 391 (DISCOVERY)		2005-2008
EVENFLO / 534 (DISCOVERY)		2005-2008
EVENFLO / 552 (DISCOVERY)		2005-2008
Recall Number:	08C002000
Summary:
EVENFLO IS RECALLING 1,000,000 MODELS 390, 391, 534, AND 552 DISCOVERY CAR SEATS OR ASSOCIATED TRAVEL SYSTEMS MANUFACTURED FROM APRIL 2005 THROUGH JANUARY 2008. IN RECENT LABORATORY TESTS CONDUCTED BY EVENFLO AND NHTSA TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE SEATS IN HIGH IMPACT SIDE COLLISIONS, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE CAR SEAT COULD POTENTIALLY BECOME SEPARATED FROM ITS BASE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.
Consequence:
SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH COULD RESULT IF THE CAR SEAT BECAME SEPARATED FROM ITS BASE.
Remedy:
EVENFLO WILL NOTIFY REGISTERED OWNERS AND PROVIDE A FREE SUPPLEMENTAL DUAL-HOOK FASTENER TO ENSURE THAT THE CAR SEAT REMAINS ATTACHED TO ITS BASE IN A HIGH IMPACT SIDE COLLISION SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE RECENT TESTS. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING FEBRUARY 2008. TO OBTAIN THE FREE FASTENER, OWNERS SHOULD CALL EVENFLO AT 1-800-356-2229 BETWEEN 8 AM AND 5 PM EST OR ORDER ONLINE AT THEIR WEBSITE AT WWW.EVENFLO.COM/DISCOVERY.
Notes:
EVENFLO HAS NOT MADE A DECISION THAT THESE UNITS CONTAIN A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT, HOWEVER EVENFLO WILL PROVIDE A FREE SUPPLEMENTAL DUAL-HOOK FASTENER. CUSTOMERS MAY ALSO CONTACT THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION'S VEHICLE SAFETY HOTLINE AT 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), OR GO TO HTTP://WWW.SAFERCAR.GOV.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It seems that  555 people, which includes over 100 children, died in all terrain vehicle (ATV) accidents in 2006. Officials have said that they expect the number to increase as more hospitals and coroners report information. The Consumer Product Safety Commission also published in their annual report that and additional 146,600 people have been treated in emergency rooms for their  ATV-related injuries of which more than a quarter were children.

Consumer groups and parents who have lost children in crashes have complained for years about the safety of the popular off-road vehicles.
The industry contends it's not the ATV but the driver that's the problem. "ATVs have never been shown to be an unsafe product, but there have been bad decisions made by people sitting on the seat," said Mike Mount, a spokesman for the California-based Specialty Vehicle Institute of America.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the matter O'Hara v. General Motors, a recent ruling has plaintiffs celebrating and defendants checking their pocketbooks.

The US Ct. of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reached an important issue yesterday and came down squarely against auto manufacturers who try to hide their defective products behind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The ruling dealt with FMVSS 205 which is a rule governing the glazing used in windows.  For a long time auto makers have argued, successfully most of the time, that their choice of window material was just fine because it met the requirements FMVSS 205.

Plaintiffs and their attorneys had been challenging the use of the tempered windows in vehicles that have latent stability and control issues because in rollover situations, the protection offered by tempered windows is minimal.

The O'Hara court addressed the question of whether or not FMVSS 205 was a minimum safety standard.  If it is a minimum safety standard, the states are free to adopt common law rules which go beyond the minimums in promoting safety.  If its not a minimum safety standard, however, any tort claims against auto makers involving their selection of glass glazing would be preempted by 205.  In essence, compliance would be the standard of reasonableness, no matter what.

The court started out by explaining that the entire issue dealt with whether 205 was a minimum standard.  And by saying just that much, I'm fairly certain that most plaintiff side product liability attorneys knew two things: (a) the O'Hara court was coming down on the side of safety, and (b) it was now going to be harder for manufacturers to continue their "design to minimums" stance.

Of course, the court didn't disappoint that expectation, holding:

Because the text and commentary on FMVSS 205 show that it is best understood as a minimum safety standard, we hold that the O’Haras’ common law negligence and strict liability claims are not preempted. See Geier, 529 U.S. at 870. The marketing and failure-to-warn claims which are dependent on them are also not preempted.

A big congratulations to Pat Ardis for this.  He has worked tirelessly on the glazing issue and has advanced the ball for plaintiffs throughout the country with this ruling.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This happened a few weeks ago but wanted to share it anyway as it impacts so a large number of vehicles.  The story says that:

One recall covers about 570,000 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups, as well as Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe and GMC Yukon and Yukon XL sport utility vehicles, all built between February 1999 and February 2000.

Not good.  Especially due to the age of the vehicle.  These cars have been on the road for quite some time.  Undoubtedly many people have been injured as a result.

A company spokesman declined to say whether those reports involved injuries or fatalities. But a U.S. government database of vehicle safety complaints from consumers shows 37 reports of air bags failing to deploy in crashes of the recalled vehicles. including 30 injuries and one fatality.

We don't have a good ratio for reports to incidents yet, but generally speaking, it is true that NHTSA's database is not a statistically significant sample of data yet.  So, it is not unfair to guess that reports to incidents are in the neighborhood of 1 to 10 (or far more).

For North Carolinians, this is even more troubling.  Should any of these vehicles cause a fatality, or worse, in North Carolina, the occupants are more than likely going to be barred from holding GM accountable.  NC's rigid Statute of Repose limits claims against manufacturers of defective products to six years from the date of sale.  Hopefully, evidence like this will push our legislature to make that statute much more reasonable.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Car fires are hot.  They burn just about everything inside.  And everyt ime one of them occurs, you can bet eyebrows get raised at the manufacturing plant.  If a car is well made and well cared for, it shouldn't burst into flames under normal use.

Todd Tracy, perhaps best known for his work on vehicle aggressivity, has filed an engine fire lawsuit in Texas against General Motors, the manufacturer of the 2004 Chevy Malibu which burst into flames after the car slide off the road and impacted with a signage pole on the side of I-45.  The resulting fire killed the driver and four of his family members.

Our firm is also currently involved in the investigative stage of a car fire lawsuit here in NC.  These types of cases pose interesting challenges for the plainittf's lawyer, and at the end of day are undoubtedly tough ones to bring to a jury.  But they are also inexplicable tragedies, and typically just a small correction in the quality control process could prevent the fire from ever starting in the first place.  Though I'm sure Tracy's firm doesn't need it, we do wish them best of luck in what is sure to be a demanding case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The NHTSA announced tougher standards for passenger vehicles in side impact crashes. The new standard requires auto manufacturers to provide head protection in side impact crashes.  This only  seems to make  common sense.  When someone is involved in a side impact crash, the person's head is extremely vulnerable to traumatic injury.  As a matter of fact, even in  a frontal  collision, there is  a great likelihood that the person's head, will fall to the  side and is vulnerable to sustaining injury  from the side as well.  At least these higher standards are a step in the right direction.  Read the new standards here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A new study relates that strength of a car's roof to its ability to prevent  serious injury  in a rollover crash.

A new report from the University of Alabama has studied Ford's own internal crash test data and concluded that the strength of a vehicle's roof is absolutely critical in preventing death or serious injury in the event of a rollover incident. Read More.

Ford has resisted this common sense conclusion for decades in its defense of hundreds of crashworthiness lawsuits.  In these suits, Ford argues that serious injury and death are not a function of roof strength, but instead these injuries a function of violent rollovers.  Implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, championing the position that rollovers are so violent no roof can help, no matter how strong.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It looks  like next month Federal official will reveal a new requirement for automakers to install side air bags by the early part of the next decade.

Side-impact crashes are the second most common fatal type after frontal crashes, killing 9,200 people in 2005. The percentage of fatalities caused by side-impact crashes is on the rise -- from 31 percent in 1980-81 to 49 percent in 2004-05.

That's at least partly because frontal air bags are required in today's vehicles (and have reduced frontal-crash fatalities), and side air bags are not, said Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Also, Lund said, "growing sales of SUVs and pickups have exacerbated height mismatches among passenger vehicles, thereby increasing the risks to occupants of many vehicles struck in the side."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By now you may have heard about the "worst performing" BMW 5 series sedan in side impact testing performed by IIHS.  It should send shockwaves, we hope, through BMW.  From the article:

The air bags in the BMW 5 Series protected the head, but separate air bags designed to protect the chest and abdomen performed poorly, the institute said.

BMW's are expensive, high-performing automobiles and there is simply no excuse for them to offer their passengers sub-standard safety in deadly side impact collisions.  The tests that the BMW failed were tests of what, at least in America, are becoming very common side-impact tragedies:

The tests were designed to show what would happen if a truck or sport utility vehicle hit the side of the sedan at 31 mph, the speed of a serious crash. Side-impact crashes are the most common type of fatal crash after a frontal crash, killing around 9,000 people in 2005, the institute said.

But there is a silver-lining to this latest round of crash 'em up.  The $25K sedan made by KIA ended up with the highest safety rating available from the IIHS.  Putting it in the same league as the vaunted VOLVO S-80.  Which of course should make you wonder, what's all that extra money doing for you in a BMW?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I hope at some point, and I suspect that point is close, American consumers will realize that price in itself is determinative of nothing... except price.

What does that mean?  It means that even though "you can't judge a book by its cover" it is equally true that "cheaper ain't always better."  And thus, we have the world of the crashworthiness narrowed down into a couple of trite sayings.  Here's a contemporary example... the Chinese sedan...

More on the flip.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Really good article on roof crush.  It starts off taking you through one of the "lucky" survivors of roof crush, a paraplegic named David Garcia.  Then they walk you through FMVSS 216.  The article reminds of a film I've seen from GM (I think, could've been Ford) from about 1960 or so.  It shows an onboard camera view of a rollover in a sedan.  The vehicle stays together pretty well and everyone who sees the video says the same thing: "even the roof held."  It is pretty scary that we say that, but everyone does.  Problem is roof crush is an all too often issue in vehicle crashes, especially rollovers.  Please read the whole article carefully, some life saving information in there.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pretty impressive engineering behind this test.  While I can't be certain, I am told that one of Ford's hunkety hunks was in the stands watching this test.  Hopefully that person was taking careful notes.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rollovers kill about 10,000 people a year in the US.  This is a slightly accelerating trend due to the popularity of SUVs.  Understanding how rollovers occur can help in prevention, and it can also help in understanding why manufacturers can help reduce rollover accidents with SUVs and other automobiles.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is a very unfortunate story, and our thoughts and  prayers go out to this child's family. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks