Objectors, including the offices of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and 25 other AGs, say the coupons, free instructional DVD and other benefits to the class aren’t very valuable. Lawyers are slated to get $2.95 million. [Christopher Jensen, NYT “Wheels” blog; Center for Class Action Fairness (h/t Ted in comments)]
Posts Tagged ‘autos’
Suing cellphone makers over car crashes
The New York Times publicizes a possible new front for product liability litigation [sidebar, yesterday’s p. 1 story]
P.S. A long, must-read post from Russell Jackson, who was quoted in the article: “Various Defenses Should Make Cell Phone Suit Untenable“.
California’s car conservation
If you thought Sacramento’s new curbs on big-screen TVs were bad, brace yourself. David Shepardson, Detroit News:
California’s latest requirement for the auto industry — advanced window glazing to keep vehicles cooler — could prevent drivers from making phone calls, listening to satellite radio or using garage door openers.
More: Carter Wood/ShopFloor, Jon Fleischman/Flash Report. And Aaron Renn at Urbanophile has a broader look at California’s decline.
Update on Mraz v. Chrysler
Readers might remember the Mraz case, where a driver was run over by his own truck because he failed to engage the parking brake, and a jury nevertheless awarded $55 million. (March 8 and March 21, 2007.)
The Chrysler bankruptcy threw a wrench into the appellate process. Given the number of unsecured (and secured!) creditors who were taking a haircut on what Chrysler owed them, and the weakness of the case, one would expect the claim to be extinguished. But Chrysler unilaterally (and almost certainly politically) decided not to extinguish product-liability lawsuits against it, and the Mraz case has settled for $24 million. (Amanda Bronstad, “Chrysler bankruptcy judge approves $24 million personal injury settlement”, National Law Journal, Sep. 25). Of course, the likely $8-$10 million attorneys’ fee in this case is being funded by taxpayers’ bailout money.
Lawsuit: tornado broke our Honda van window
Robert Kahn, Courthouse News on a Maryland case: “A family demands $10 million from Honda, claiming a side window shattered and injured them when a tornado picked up their Honda Odyssey. …They say Honda should use laminated glass, as it does for windshields,” instead of tempered glass. For why the choice between laminated and conventional glass in side windows exposes automakers to a choice between one type of lawsuit and another, see our May 13, 2005 post. The plaintiff husband is also suing his wife, who was driving the vehicle. More: Fark.
Cash for clunkers program
Claim: dealership wrongly allowed employee to steal car
…and should be held legally responsible for his shooting a cop at a 2:30 a.m. traffic stop in Brooklyn, according to a suit filed by the cop’s surviving family. [Staten Island Advance via TortsProf]
CPSIA and … automotive products?
Nearly all the outcry about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 has focused on its absurd and impracticable rules for products intended for kids twelve and under, such as apparel, books, toys, used items and so forth. But the law is actually a lot broader than that, imposing many new requirements and burdens that apply to wider classes of consumer products, whether or not intended for use by kids. Here’s the story of one miscellaneous provision causing major headaches for makers and distributors of specialty chemicals used in car care and maintenance (Paul Laurenza, “Product safety law imposes major burdens on auto suppliers”, Aftermarket Business, Apr. 3, via ShopFloor)
“Lawyer blames his BMW for speeding and loses”
“A Portland attorney who blamed his German luxury car for a speeding ticket was told he was responsible, not the automaker,” reports AP/OregonLive: C. Akin Blitz brought in a PowerPoint presentation and the testimony of a mechanic to bolster his argument “that he had no idea his BMW 535xi was going 76 mph in a 55 mph zone because of its handling characteristics”, but Clatsop County Circuit Judge Philip Nelson disagreed and fined Blitz $182.
P.S.: Ken at Popehat: “Legal realism note: as a rule, you will not find traffic court judges sympathetic to the defense ‘Your honor, I am not guilty because my German luxury car is too awesome.”
Thumb-in-the-eye II: Cal Supremes affirm Buell-Wilson
We’ve been following Buell-Wilson v. Ford for some time, including the U.S. Supreme Court remand. Curt Cutting’s blog has the latest in two April posts here and here. Cal Biz Lit also has good commentary.