Defective Vehicles

An article on Sunshine News reports on the first legislative bill of the year that would grant automakers more protection from lawsuit losses in accident cases in defective product lawsuits. The Senate Judiciary Committee, by a 5-1 vote, approved SB 142, which reverses a state Supreme Court decision regarding what evidence may be entered into trial in automobile product defect cases. It allows automakers to admit evidence including driver error in instances of injury caused by product defects and design flaws. For example, Ford would be able to argue that an injured driver was drunk and therefore contributed to his own injuries.

Automakers are hoping that blaming the victim will shield the companies from millions in jury awards over a defective product and design flaw. A Ford attorney tells the paper the bill is fair and about apportioning fault.

The article describes this as a battle between the Republican-led legislature and business groups against trial attorneys, but fails to mention that there are attorneys that are advocating for injured consumers.

At trial, attorneys and judges already have the discretion to introduce the evidence they believe is relevant. The Florida Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that Ford and other auto manufacturers could be held solely liable for enhances injuries in a crash over a design defect, regardless of the driver’s contribution to the crash.

The new bill would assist Ford Motor Co., which didn’t take taxpayer bailout money, as well as help General Motors and Chrysler who did take bailout money, at the same time they won some immunity from defective product lawsuits filed by the very public who funded the bailout.

New Florida lawmakers have said it is their mission to free business from the cost of lawsuits, regardless of the fact that lawsuits keep manufacturers safety conscious, if for no other reason than to avoid the cost of lawsuits.

The Florida product liability lawyers at Farah & Farah often find that a motorist’s injuries are the result of a defective automobile or component’s design or manufacturing. We will continue to fight for the rights of consumers, who should not be injured by a defective product, and we will win them the compensation they deserve.

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) crashes are in the news almost weekly and almost always involve the death or injury of young riders.

In Pasco County, recent high school graduates, Dan Brown and Steven Villarreal, were killed in a collision on their Arctic Cat ATV. In July, two Dade City teens died when their ATV collided with a sport utility vehicle, according to an article on Tampa Bay Online.

On Saturday, September 4, four teens from Hudson were seriously injured when their ATV collided with a pickup truck in Pasco County. Two youths, ages 12 and 16, were riding together on a Honda Sports Trac ATV, according to the Florida Highway Patrol.

Neighbors say teens often drive in the rural Pasco County neighborhood instead of off-road, which ATVs are designed to travel.

ATV Safety
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finds that ATVs are often used improperly. An ATV is supposed to be driven by a single rider, but the CPSC finds that tragic accidents often had young people riding together on the vehicles.

An ATV is designed to take the ruts in a rural dirt road. A rider must shift his weight to adjust to the ruts in the road which is impossible to do when there are passengers on board.

Since 1982, about 10,000 people have been killed in ATV accidents with nearly one-third under the age of 16. In 2008, nearly 38,000 children were treated in emergency rooms after being injured on ATVs. Hundreds of thousands of ATVs have been recalled for defective designs and a manufacturer who knows about a defective design may be guilty of a failure-to-warn the public.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an ATV accident in Florida, the defective design of these unstable vehicles may be to blame if the person was riding the ATV in a way that was suggested by the manufacturer. The Florida personal injury attorneys at Farah & Farah would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Settlement conferences are scheduled to address the dangers of the Yamaha Rhino ATV and the many product liability lawsuits that have resulted.

The popular off-road vehicle allegedly has design defects that cause riders to suffer serious and sometimes fatal injuries in rollover accidents. Several hundred lawsuits have been filed around the country. They all allege that design problems with the Yamaha Rhino make them prone to rollover. Videos on YouTube show them rolling over at speeds as slow as 15 mph.

Because there are so many lawsuits, they have been centralized for pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict litigation or MDL. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky is handling the cases which are considered a ‘bellwether’ because they will tell how jurors will respond to evidence in the mounting number of cases brought by product liability litigation. Trials are schedule to begin in October 2010.

Lawyers representing the injured are involved in settlement conference for cases in the MDL. Yamaha contends that its Rhino is safe and useful for off-road ventures when driven responsibly and according to the instruction both in the manual and printed on the vehicle.

Yamaha got a boost when, last August, a jury in Texas state court found that Yamaha was not liable for the death of a 13-year-old boy in a Yamaha Rhino wrongful death lawsuit filed by his parents. The boy was not wearing a helmet, as the manufacturer suggests and the Rhino had been modified. In that case, the Rhino flipped and crushed and killed the boy, which is typical for the types of injuries caused by these dangerous ATVs. #

Source Article: http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/yamaha-rhino-settlement-conferences-7740/

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has announced a voluntary recall of the Arctic Cat snowmobiles due to a potential fire hazard. Arctic Cat Inc. of Thief River Falls, Minnesota has agreed to recall 1,300 snowmobiles because they leak fuel from the fuel pump at the fuel tank mounting screws, which presents a fire hazard to the riders and owners. So far, no injuries have been reported even though the company has received two reports of snowmobiles that leak fuel. This recall includes the2010 Arctic Cat 500 Sno Pro models. Look for the model name and number on the engine cowling and side of the seat. These Arctic Cats were sold nationwide at dealers from October 2009 to February 2010. They cost from $7,800 to $8,200. If you own one of these snowmobiles, or know someone who does, you are advised to discontinue their use and contact the dealer to schedule a free repair. Arctic Cat can be reached at (800) 279-6851 between 8am and 5pm CT. You can also visit their Web site at www.arctic-cat.com. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission recall, issued February 23, can be found on the agency’s Web site, which includes a picture of the model listed in the recall, the Sno Pro 500.

Source Article: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10721.html

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is making it easier for parent and child caregivers to choose the safest booster seats that keep kids safe in automobiles. The Institutes rates 9 belt-positioning boosters as Best Bets and 6 as Good Bets out of 60 models. Eleven are not recommended at all.

The purpose of a booster seat is to elevate a child or even a small person so that the seat belt fits properly. Ideally, the lap belt will fit flat across a child’s upper thigh and not across the abdomen which is likely to cause injury in an accident. The shoulder belt should cross snugly over the middle of a child or an adult’s shoulder. That is the best position to be in case there is a crash.

The Institute used crash test dummies to assess the reliability of the boosters in both the lap and shoulder area and cover almost all models currently sold in the U.S. Look for the Combi Dakota backless with clip, Recaro Young Sport highback (combination seat), Recaro Vivo highback, Maxi-Cosi Rodi XR dual-use highback, Evenflo Big Kid Amp backless with clip, Eddie Bauer Auto Booster dual-use highback, Cosco Juvenile Pronto dual-use highback, Britax Frontier highback (combination seat), and Clek Oobr dual-use highback. Look at all of the ratings on the IIHS Web site.

Those that are not recommended include the Harmony Secure Comfort Deluze backless with clip, Combi Kobuck duel-use highback, Evenflo Express highback, Eddie Bauer Deluxe highback, and Evenflo Sightseer highback. There are more on the list that are not recommended.

Source Article: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/01/18/462161.html