William Tucker, writing in the New York Sun (Apr. 1), explores the ruinous consequences of the state’s vicarious-liability law for independent car rental agencies (via Spartacus). See our piece of last Jun. 9 as well as Jul. 14 and links from there. More: Chrysler has now joined GM and Ford in refusing to lease in New York, while Honda has resumed offering leases, but at special high prices intended to compensate for the state law. (“Chrysler to stop leasing in New York”, Bloomberg/Detroit Free Press, Mar. 26)
Posts Tagged ‘autos’
Cheeseburger bill passes House
By a vote of 276 to 139 with most Democrats opposed, the House gave its approval to a bill that would bar lawsuits against the food industry over obesity. (Christopher Lee, “House bill bans suits blaming eateries for obesity”, Washington Post/San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 11). The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate; similar legislation is pending in many state legislatures and has passed in Louisiana. Jacob Sullum at Reason “Hit & Run” has two good commentaries on the bill. It’s “disconcerting to see Congress instructing state courts to dismiss patently absurd lawsuits. I worry that it’s not really necessary. I worry more that it is,” Sullum writes. (Mar. 9). Sullum also catches GW law prof John Banzhaf talking out of both sides of his mouth about whether obesity lawsuits have been successful (Mar. 10).
One activist quoted in the new coverage is Ben Kelley, who in cooperation with Prof. Richard Daynard has taken a prominent role in organizing conferences advising lawyers on how to sue the food industry (see Elizabeth Lee, Andrew Mollison, “Food fans weigh in”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 10). It turns out that this is none other than the same Ben Kelley we covered ten years ago when we examined how litigation consultants working with trial lawyers have successfully promoted bogus media coverage of alleged auto hazards, including NBC’s famous use of hidden incendiary devices to portray GM trucks as prone to explode (Walter Olson, “It Didn’t Start With Dateline NBC”, National Review, Jun. 21, 1993.) The pro-foodmaker Center for Consumer Freedom has more on Kelley’s recent activities: see Dan Mindus, “McLawsuit Lies”, National Review, Oct. 29; “Trial Lawyers Up Demands On Food Companies”, Oct. 30; “Update: Obesity War Loses Discredited General”, Nov. 4.
MedPundit Sydney Smith thinks (Mar. 10) that the much-headlined new study purporting to find that obesity claims more lives than smoking “is, all things considered, a very weak study. Certainly too weak to be the foundation of sweeping public policy.” For more of our coverage of obesity litigation, see Aug. 11, Jun. 20, Sept. 4, Aug. 6, Jul. 21, Jul. 3, Jul. 3 again, Jul. 1, Jun. 24, and a great deal more here. More: Radley Balko dissents from the bill on federalist grounds (Mar. 11)(& letter to the editor, Mar. 18).
Nissan headlights
The blue-tinged xenon headlights of the Nissan Maxima have become a popular target for thieves who rip them from a car and sell them on the black market, including 277 incidents in Newark alone. The State of New Jersey, noting the epidemic of thefts in its state, has decided to take action — by suing Nissan. Nissan should have anticipated that its customers would be victimized, says the State, and warned them before they bought the car. (Ronald Smothers, “Nissan Sued Over Theft-Prone Headlights”, NY Times, Mar. 9; Crissa Shoemaker, “Lawsuit: Nissan withheld headlight theft risk”, Courier-News, Mar. 9; Mitch Lipka, “Headlight theft wave spurs state to sue Nissan”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 9). According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, Nissan was a leader in taking steps to prevent headlight thefts, so if this suit has legs, look for copycat lawsuits against other auto manufacturers–and this ludicrous theory of liability could end up being extended to other car parts or even carjackings. (Peter DeMarco, “Left in the dark”, Boston Globe, Feb. 26; Rod Gibson, “Most-stolen cars? It’s debatable”, bankrate.com, Sep. 23, 2003).
$12.5 M verdict in pickup crash suit
On October 9, 1999, a construction zone on Interstate 70 near Warrenton, Missouri, was slick after a hard rain. An eastbound tractor-trailer hydroplaned, hit the median, and flipped over, blocking the westbound lanes. John and Shirley Mathes, driving a Ford pickup pulling a camper trailer with propane tanks, slammed into the 30-ton trailer at 60 miles per hour, and were then sandwiched by another pickup truck driving 50 miles per hour. The Matheses and their grandson died in the crash, though it was a matter of dispute whether they survived the initial impacts; medical examiners on both sides of the case found no evidence that they had.
The deep pocket in the case was Ford, and a Jackson County jury decided that, in a case where three vehicles were traveling too fast, and all three leaked fuel and ignited, it was Ford that should be legally responsible for $12.5 million in damages because the pickup truck’s fuel tank — which met a crash test three times more severe than the federal safety standard — was “defective” for not remaining intact in such a dramatic collision. (Dan Margolies, Kansas City Star, “Ford told to pay $12.5 million”, Mar. 5; AP, Mar. 4).
Disclaimer: I represent Ford in different litigation.
Update: Ford settles Romo case
Bringing to an apparent close a legal saga often chronicled in this space (see Nov. 26 and links from there, Nov. 27), the Ford Motor Co. has agreed to pay $23.7 million plus $10.8 million in interest for a total of $34.5 million to settle the Romo family’s lawsuit concerning a fatal rollover of a 1978 Ford Bronco. The original jury verdict of $290 million in 1999 came after a trial noteworthy both for demagogic argumentation and bizarre jury deliberations, and was slashed by an appeals court in November. (Susan Herendeen, “Ford agrees to $34.5M judgment”, Modesto Bee, Feb. 4).
Juries not rolling over for Explorer suits
To judge from some of the press coverage, you’d think the Ford Explorer was the most sinister passenger vehicle in human history. And yet “Ford Motor Co. successfully has defended the popular sport utility vehicle in 10 consecutive jury trials.” On the other hand, the automaker has paid millions of dollars to settle Explorer cases: perhaps 1,500 of them, according to an estimate proffered by one California plaintiff’s lawyer. Ford won’t give out numbers. (“Explorer verdicts go Ford’s way”, Detroit News, Jan. 26)(see also Jan. 8).
Not with an Explorer, you don’t
“U-Haul International Inc. is forbidding its stores to rent trailers to customers who plan to tow with the Ford Explorer, saying it no longer can afford to defend product liability lawsuits linked to the best-selling SUV. … U-Haul — North America?s largest trailer rental company with more than 17,000 outlets — implemented the policy Dec. 22, saying the ban was not related to safety. ‘U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations,’ the company told The Detroit News. … U-Haul has no ban on rentals to Mercury Mountaineer owners, although the vehicle is mechanically a carbon copy of the Explorer.” (Eric Mayne, “U-Haul rejects Explorers”, Detroit News, Jan. 8)(& letter to the editor, Mar. 18).
Updates
More developments in previously covered controversies:
* Where credit is due dept.: lawyers for Patrick Hayashi, whose squabble over ownership of a souvenir Barry Bonds home run baseball grew so costly as to eat up the ball’s auction value, agreed to roll back their fees so that their client would emerge from the case with something of value other than the experience (Gwen Knapp, “Finally, in Bonds ball case, someone shows some class”, San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 30)(see Jul. 1).
* National talk show host Joe Scarborough, criticized here among other places for naming a company as “Rat of the Week” without disclosing that his partners at Pensacola’s Levin Papantonio were actively suing it (see Sept. 15), says he’s now stopped receiving a stipend from the law firm, though name partner Fred Levin says Scarborough remains associated with the firm and may even do a commercial for it (Amber Bollman, “Scarborough: No pay from law firm”, Pensacola News Journal, Dec. 30; Howard Kurtz, “Bad News Bearers: Up To No Good?” Washington Post, Dec. 29)(low in piece) (via Lori Patel, Law.com).
* After nearly three weeks of testimony and an hour and a half of deliberations, a jury has rejected a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company over the death of New Jersey state trooper Scott Gonzalez (see Oct. 27, 1999). Gonzalez was killed in a shootout with a mental patient, and lawyers for his widow had alleged that he might have survived had his Ford Crown Victoria been designed so that a crumpled fender did not block his door from opening; they also sued the killer’s parents (who were released from the suit shortly before the recent trial) and Hechler & Koch, the maker of her husband’s police gun, because it briefly jammed after he’d fired seven shots from it; the latter suit resulted in a settlement providing less than $50,000 to Maureen Gonzalez. (Jenna Portnoy, “Jury rules Ford not liable in trooper’s shooting death”, Easton, Pa. Express-Times, Dec. 19)
$82M verdict reversed
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed an $82 million verdict against General Motors–not because it was ludicrous to hold GM responsible (much less responsible for $60 million in punitive damages) because a passenger was injured while riding in an Oldsmobile that hit another automobile head on at 50 miles per hour and a combined speed of almost 100 mph, but because the trial judge had refused to strike five jurors who were related to an attorney at the law firm for the plaintiff. The case will be retried. (Philip Rawls, AP, Dec. 12; “Brain injury in crash costs General Motors”, OnWheels, May 20, 2002) (via Bashman).
SUV wars: any means to an end?
Reviewing Adam Penenberg’s newly published book Tragic Indifference: One Man’s Battle with the Auto Industry Over the Dangers of SUVs, which recounts the Firestone tire/Ford Explorer imbroglio mostly from the standpoint of plaintiff’s attorney Tab Turner, FindLaw reviewer Matt Herrington (Oct. 10) writes that the book “provides an interesting view of the interrelationships between the plaintiffs’ bar, the expert and consumer advocacy industries, and corporate America” but is “painfully, almost comically, one sided”: “anyone who helps the plaintiffs is a hero” while “anyone who raises any obstacle to their quest for justice must be evil”. The result? “Even bad behavior, if it helps the plaintiffs, is depicted as heroism. For example, Penenberg describes how two experts who make their livings as critics of the auto industry obtained a purportedly ‘suppressed’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study of uncertain provenance; they believe the study contradicted NHTSA’s public statements. But they got the study ‘through the mail’ — it was not an official document, it had no provenance — it was not, and here is the key point, admissible evidence. This technicality is resolved through trickery that is at least unethical, and likely illegal too. Penenberg reports that one of the experts ‘stashed the analysis in one of the [NHTSA] dockets concerning rollovers and then went off for lunch. When he returned, [he] informed a clerk he needed a certified copy of the report, and described where to find it. A couple hours later [he] got it back complete with NHTSA’s official seal and tied with a blue ribbon.’
“That’s not a cute story. Not even close. It’s a story of an ethical violation, a lie to the government, and a confidentiality breach.”