The federal government has decided that automakers may not install one safety option (a front passenger seat airbag turnoff switch, intended to protect kids) unless they also install a second (a child-seat anchor system known as LATCH). Toyota had offered the first but not the second on certain Tundra models, so they did a recall whose point was to eliminate customers’ access to the first option, thus worsening safety for kids riding in front seats. (Peter Valdes-Dapena, “Toyota’s totally bizarre recall”, CNN/Money, Jul. 12). DealBreaker comments: “How badly does the government hate your kids? Bad enough to kill them.” (Jul. 13).
Posts Tagged ‘autos’
Update: municipal Crown Victoria suits
Class action lawyers were suing Ford Motor claiming to represent Illinois municipalities that regretted buying the popular police model. Then Ford announced that it would decline to sell the car to towns that were suing over it. Now, according to the Illinois Civil Justice League, close to 1,000 municipalities have elected to opt out of the action — one sign among several that it was ill-conceived from the start. More here, here and here (cross-posted from Point of Law).
Arkansas court: bus company not liable for lack of seatbelts
Breathalyzers for everyone?
At least if New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz gets his way. Although it doesn’t consider the technology ready yet, “Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) gives a qualified endorsement to the idea” of making the devices mandatory in all new cars, teetotalers’ included. After all, they only run about $1,000 apiece, the cost in freedom and dignity aside (Jayne O’Donnell, “Will all autos some day have breathalyzers?”, USA Today, Apr. 28)(via Brian Doherty, Hit and Run).
Hamby v. Daimler/Chrysler
Roberto Martinez was washing Lori Hamby’s used 1991 Dodge Caravan while Hamby’s two-year-old daughter, Mary Madison Hamby Garcia, was playing inside of the vehicle by herself. The van was parked on top of a long driveway and the emergency brakes off. The key in the ignition in the “on” position so he could play the radio; the doors were open so he could vacuum the vehicle. Martinez was retrieving Windex fifteen feet away when Hamby apparently dislodged the automatic transmission from park. With the ignition key-lock the disabled, the vehicle hurtled down the driveway, killing Hamby when it struck a tree, jarring her from the vehicle, and pinning her beneath the tire, where she died of asphyxiation compression.
This is, an Atlanta jury held, 51% Chrysler’s fault. The theory on which the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff is on the theory that Chrysler failed to adequately warn of the risk of leaving children unattended in vehicles with the key in the ignition—even though Hamby’s mother, Lori Hamby, only “glanced” through the owner’s manual, which did warn against it. Madison Hamby, who was dead on the scene, was awarded $2.25 million for pain and suffering on top of the $2.25 million for wrongful death. The jury ruled for Chrysler on the funeral expenses, however. Chrysler is appealing. (Greg Land, “DaimlerChrysler to Appeal $3.4M Awarded in Minivan Accident”, Fulton County Daily Report, Mar. 6 (via Prince); DeeAnn Durbin, “DaimlerChrysler ordered to pay family in minivan lawsuit”, AP/Detroit News, Mar. 3; Hamby v. DaimlerChrysler, No. 1:03CV:0937-CAP (N.D. Ga.)).
“Drunk driver sues truck maker”
By reader acclaim: an FBI agent who was pulled unconscious from his burning truck with blood alcohol level of 0.306, and subsequently pleaded guilty to drunken driving, “has sued the maker of his pickup because it caught fire after he passed out behind the wheel.” The lawsuit, against General Motors and dealership Bill Heard Chevrolet, says Clymer “somehow lost consciousness” — possibly the empty bottle of Captain Morgan Rum found on the passenger seat had something to do with that? — and that while he lay there with the engine running the 2004 Chevy Silverado “somehow” began to give off smoke from some sort of combustion, which may or may not be code for “theory to be filled in later”.
At sentencing in November — he drew a suspended 30-day jail term and 48 hours community service — “Clymer’s lawyer said his client wanted to take responsibility for his actions.” (Brian Haynes, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Apr. 14).
“Caution: that vehicle collision may not be an accident”
The L.A. Times tackles a subject often treated in this space (Nov. 29, etc.): organized auto-crash fraud, which is largely premised on the chance of bringing bogus liability claims. According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, Los Angeles is second only to Miami in the volume of such fraud. “Some organized auto fraud rings are so complex they involve hundreds of willing participants, including unscrupulous lawyers, doctors, chiropractors, auto shops, tow truck operators, ambulance drivers, police officers and insurance company employees, according to NICB investigations.” (Jeanne Wright, L.A. Times, Mar. 29).
Deep pocket files: Michael Boyle v. Ford
Michael Boyle pleaded guilty to a charge of unsafe driving after he plowed into the back of a truck at 60 mph without braking and with his lights off. Unfortunately for Boyle, the under-ride rear impact guard of the truck, installed by Garden State Engine and Equipment, sheared off in the high-speed collision, and his car submarined under the truck, almost decapitating him, and leaving him with brain damage and facial insensation, though he’s able to work in his family business. This was, the New Jersey jury decided, 70% the fault of Ford Motor, which dared to sell an incomplete cab and chassis that complied with all federal regulations, and which could be modified in many different ways, not all of which require identical under-ride guards to comply with applicable regulations. $26.2 million in damages were assessed. Ford was not allowed to introduce Boyle’s guilty plea at trial. (John Petrick, “Faulting Ford and parts maker, jury awards crash victim $26.2M”, North Jersey, Mar. 22) (via Steenson, who made no mention of the contributory negligence in his summary). Unjust $26 million awards are apparently sufficiently “dog-bites-man” that the local press coverage is the only press coverage so far.
“Man Hits His Own Car Then Sues Himself”
By reader acclaim, from California: “When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey’s car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn’t stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.” When the city rejected the claim, Gokey and his wife Rhonda refiled it under her name. (AP/Lodi News/ABCNews.com, Mar. 16).
Ford lost seven $20 million verdicts in 2005
This, according to a Bloomberg News count. Bloomberg dutifully quotes a law professor who argues that this means that Ford should change its litigation strategy of refusing to settle before trial. Is there any other profession where the professor of a subject is so regularly wrong about the practice of the subject?
Taking the cases to trial is cost-effective because Ford wins 70 percent to 80 percent of them, said spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes.
“We know from 13 years of experience that being ready, willing and able to defend our products and people, even in ‘judicial hellholes,’ is the most effective way to control litigation costs,” Vokes said. “The rare big verdict that is upheld on appeal is more than offset by all of the other cases that we win or settle on favorable terms.”
(Margaret Cronin Fisk, Bloomberg News, Feb. 16). The lede of the story, claiming that the strategy “cost” Ford $255 million, is inaccurate on multiple levels: first, it doesn’t count settlement costs for cases it did settle or its legal expenses; second, a verdict isn’t necessarily upheld by an appellate court, and thus may not represent an actual cost to Ford; third, the proper baseline is how much an alternative strategy would cost Ford. There are tens of thousands of automobile deaths and hundreds of thousands of auto injuries every year, and a large fraction of them, just by random chance, involve Ford vehicles. If Ford offered blank checks to everyone who sued it, how many more lawsuits would Ford face? The fact is that other auto manufacturers engage in the same strategy, and Ford just had especially bad luck in the lottery litigation game in 2005.
We covered four of the seven cases: Nov. 21; Nov. 17; May 29 and links therein; Mar. 21. And I owe readers a post about a fifth case, Jablonski, which I thought I had posted about, but didn’t. (The Munoz case (Jan. 26) was a 2006 case.) It says something about the commonness of a $20 million verdict that none of these five cases made national headlines, and that we missed the other two entirely, in my case because they slipped through my Google News filter.