Speaking of crashing into a crowd of bystanders: “Eleven lawsuits were filed Tuesday on behalf of two people who were killed and nine who were injured when a car plowed through a crowded farmers market last summer.” Named as defendants in the suit by Brian J. Panish, Timothy J. Wheeler and Geoffrey S. Wells are the City of Santa Monica; “the company that oversees the market, a farmers association, Los Angeles County’s agricultural commissioner and the state of California”; and General Motors. Oh, yes, and the actual driver, 88-year-old George Russell Weller; almost forgot him. (“Lawsuits filed in Santa Monica farmers market car crash that killed 10”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 13; “Greene Broillet Files 11 Lawsuits Against the City of Santa Monica for Wrongful Deaths and Personal Injuries Arising out of the July 2003 Santa Monica Farmers’ Market Tragedy”, press release, Jul. 13). In all, ten people were killed and 63 injured in the accident last July. (& see Sept. 15).
Posts Tagged ‘autos’
Hyundai wins one in Alabama
Lowndes County, Alabama, has a reputation for being a rather plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction. On Tuesday, however, a jury there returned a verdict in favor of Hyundai Motor Co. in a wrongful death suit. In 1999, Christine Graham was killed “when her 2,300-pound Hyundai Excel was struck by a 79,000-pound Freightliner 18-wheeler going more than 60 miles per hour. Attorneys for the Graham family argued that a faulty seat belt and door latch design contributed to her death in the accident. Hyundai attorneys said the seat belt and door latch met all safety standards and the sheer force of the accident caused the woman’s death.” The case had been tried once before, in July 2002, ending in a hung jury that voted 10-2 in Hyundai’s favor. (Michael Tomberlin, “Hyundai prevails in crash lawsuit,” Birmingham News, June 24).
It’s interesting to note that Hyundai is building its first US assembly plant in adjacent Montgomery Country. When opened in 2005, the $1 billion facility will employ 2,000 people. I’ll leave it to others to divine whether this had any effect on the outcome of Hyundai’s case.
Indiana court: cell-phone companies not responsible for auto accident
Terry Williams collided with Kellie Meagher, who was allegedly talking on a Cingular phone at the time — so Williams sued Cingular. Neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals was impressed, even after Williams submitted a Blondie comic strip in support of the cause. The court noted that it wouldn’t impose liability on a mapmaker for a driver who causes an accident while looking at a map. (Kevin Corcoran, “Court: Don’t blame cell-phone maker for crash”, Indianapolis Star, Jun. 5). However, plaintiffs have successfully sued employers in other cases where employees were using cell phones while driving. (Matt Sundeen, “Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2003 State Legislative Update”, NCSL, Jan. 2004).
Jackpot in San Diego
Drivers of the Ford Explorer have a lower fatality rate than drivers of other vehicles — and a lower fatality rate from rollovers than drivers of other SUVs. The NHTSA found that there was nothing wrong with the Explorer’s design after a spate of well-publicized accidents resulted in an investigation. Nevertheless, plaintiffs persist in filing lawsuits accusing the Explorer of being unreasonably dangerous. And one can see why: Ford has successfully defended the vehicle in at least ten consecutive jury cases, but on Wednesday a San Diego jury rewarded the latest roll of the dice with a $122.6 million verdict for a paraplegic plaintiff, Benetta Buell-Wilson. Ms. Buell-Wilson was driving at a high speed on Interstate 8, when the RV in front of her lost a large piece of metal; she lost control of the SUV when she swerved, and the vehicle went off the highway and flipped 4 times before landing on the roof. The jury returns today to deliberate the question of punitive damages. (Ray Huard, “$123 million awarded in SUV rollover”, San Diego Union-Tribune, Jun. 3; Myron Levin, “Jury Orders Ford to Pay $122.6 Million”, LA Times, Jun. 3) (via Bashman). “This was an extremely severe crash, and any SUV would have reacted in the same way under similar circumstances,” Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said. “Our concern goes out to Ms. Buell-Wilson and her family, but this tragic accident was caused by a combination of high speed and a large metal obstruction in the road.” (“Verdict ends Ford streak”, Detroit News, Jun. 3). Ford says it will appeal; the jury awarded four times more than what plaintiffs asked for.
Update: Jury awards $246 million in punitive damages. Ford protests that it wasn’t allowed to introduce evidence to the jury comparing the safety record of the Explorer to other SUVs. (Reuters, Jun. 3; Myron Levin, “Jury Adds Punitive Award in Ford Case”, LA Times, Jun. 4).
Update: Judge reduces damages to $150 million; Ford has appealed. (Michelle Morgante, AP, Aug. 19; Nora Lockwood Tooher, “Explorer Rollover Yields $368.6 Million Verdict”, Lawyers Weekly USA, Dec. 30).
As with all my posts, I speak for myself and not my firm or any of my firm’s clients (which include Ford).
Automakers now in asbestos gunsights
Lawsuits have been filed for years blaming automakers for exposure to asbestos found in brake pads and other auto parts, but the volume of such litigation appears to be sharply increasing. Between February 2002 and February 2003 the number of cases filed against Ford nearly doubled, from 25,000 to 41,500. “In a filing with the SEC, Ford said that it is facing a rise in lawsuits as the original manufacturers of the components have gone bankrupt over the past several years. Ford’s report said, ‘In most asbestos litigation, we are not the sole defendant. We believe we are being more aggressively targeted in asbestos suits because many previously targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy.'” (Robert Lane, “Asbestos Suits Costing Ford As Others Go Broke”, Blue Oval News, Apr. 14; Ed Garsten, “Automakers see asbestos lawsuits rise”, Detroit News, Mar. 21).
Update: judge OKs tire settlement
Despite objections from rival plaintiff’s lawyers and others, state district judge Donald Floyd in Beaumont, Texas, has approved the settlement of a class action on behalf of consumers who own or owned recalled Firestone tires allegedly prone to tread separation. The settlement excludes anyone who has filed actual claims of personal or property injury related to the tires. Class members (other than 45 named plaintiffs who will receive $2,500 each) will get no monetary compensation, but will have the right to trade in the tires if they did not respond to the earlier recall, and Firestone has pledged another $65 million for education and safety programs. The class action lawyers, meanwhile, which include Beaumont’s Provost Umphrey, will get $19 million. See our reports of Sept. 19 and Oct. 8. (Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, “Judge Approves $149 Million Firestone Tire Settlement”, Texas Lawyer, Mar. 22).
Miss. governor: legal climate helped cost us auto plant
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says the Magnolia State’s famously pro-plaintiff litigation climate may have played a role in Toyota’s decision last year to locate a new plant in Texas rather than northern Mississippi. Barbour “gave reporters and legislators copies of a letter written to him last week by Dennis C. Cuneo, a New York-based senior vice president of Toyota Motor North America Inc. …Cuneo said he led the site selection for the Japanese auto maker’s newest plants and was impressed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s commitment to changing that state’s civil justice system. Cuneo wrote Mississippi is ‘desirable’ for its infrastructure, pool of skilled labor, quality of life and proximity to other Toyota plants and suppliers. But he said ‘the litigation climate in Mississippi is unfavorable, and negatively impacts the state’s business climate.'” (Emily Wagster Pettus, “Barbour: Legal climate hurt state in push to get Toyota plant”, AP/Biloxi Sun-Herald, Apr. 26). Barbour was promptly assailed by lawmaker Ed Blackmon, himself a successful plaintiff’s lawyer, who heads a judiciary committee in the lower house of the Mississippi legislature where he has helped to bottle up liability reform. Blackmun said he “doesn’t believe tort reform played a role in Toyota’s decision and said he guesses ‘Maybe someone at Toyota owed (Barbour) a favor’ and wrote the letter.” (Geoff Pender, “House, Senate show little tort progress”, AP/Biloxi Sun-Herald, Apr. 27; Shelia Hardwell Byrd, “Barbour says House needs chance to vote on tort reform”, AP/Biloxi Sun-Herald, Apr. 29; “Letter shows state needs tort reform” (editorial), Natchez Democrat, Apr. 27; Julie Goodman, “Lawmaker accuses gov. of exploiting tort myth”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Apr. 29).
Update: Gotham’s car-leasing calamity
The New York Times weighs in on the disaster for consumers that has resulted from the state’s “vicarious liability” law. Porsche and Hyundai are the latest automakers to suspend leasing in the Empire State. “In 2002, 224,000 New Yorkers leased cars, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Last year, that number dropped to 142,656.” (Marc Santora, “Many Carmakers Stop Leasing in New York, Citing Accident Liability Law”, Apr. 24). For our earlier coverage of the issue, see Apr. 2 and links from there.
Sudden acceleration: litigation springs eternal
Fifteen years after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that the explanation for supposed “sudden acceleration” in cars was that the drivers were mistakenly pressing the accelerator rather than the brake, trial lawyers continue to sue automakers, and now NHTSA has agreed to open an investigation into claims of unintended acceleration in Toyota and Lexus models. While an earlier wave of suits tended to blame cruise control malfunctions, the new favorite culprit is electronic throttle control systems. In lawsuits over the accidents, the car’s brakes, which can ordinarily bring a car to a stop even when its throttle is fully open, will typically be said to have mysteriously failed as the same time as the acceleration defect was manifesting itself, although nothing will be found physically wrong with the brakes afterward.
“For more than a decade, decisions usually favored car companies and blamed drivers in unintended acceleration cases, but some recent trials and court decisions reversed that. Ford Motor and General Motors each recently lost a high-profile case. … A Missouri jury last year ordered GM to pay Constance Peters and her husband $80 million for the crash of her 1993 Oldsmobile Cutlass, which accelerated 120 feet in reverse and into a tree while she was backing up. They blamed faulty cruise control. GM is appealing.” And: “The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 2002 reinstated a $1.1 million judgment against Ford in the crash of a 1991 Ford Aerostar. Jurors had found that the crash was caused partly by a ‘negligently designed’ cruise control system.” (Jayne O’Donnell and David Kiley, “Technology puts unintended acceleration back in spotlight”, USA Today/Detroit News, Apr. 13)(via Reason Hit and Run). For more on the issue, see Jun. 6, 2000.
Auto-seller sued for elderly test-driver’s accident
William Cecil Weeks was test-driving a car when he ran a red light and hit Vicki Hiers’s pickup, ejecting her from the vehicle and causing brain damage. This, the Hiers family claims in a lawsuit filed by Michael Strickland, is the fault of Ken Isaacs Chevrolet-Cadillac in Moultrie, Georgia, because they let the 86-year-old test drive a car alone. (Lori Glenn, “Lawsuit alleges negligence in wreck”, Moultrie Observer, Apr. 10). Under Georgia law, Code 40-8-76.1, item D, the auto dealer is not allowed to defend itself at trial by alleging that Ms. Hiers might not have been ejected from her pickup had she worn her seat belt, but perhaps they will be able to note that auto salespeople are not imbued with the power to hit the brakes from the passenger seat (& letter to editor May 7).