News & Information

On Wednesday May 4, the Florida House approved a pro-business bill that will make it tougher for motorists injured in a car accident to win a product liability claim that their injuries resulted from a defective automobile. The measure is now on its way to Gov. Rick Scott who is expected to sign it. The bill had previously been approved in the Senate.

Often a motorist injured in an auto accident will find that their car was defective and played a significant role in the accident cause. Perhaps it was a runaway vehicle, the brakes didn’t work properly, or the airbags didn’t deploy in an initial collision, resulting in serious injury for the motorist and/or their passengers. Florida product liability law allows the injured to hold the manufacturer of that vehicle liable for their injuries.

Ever since a 2001 Florida Supreme Court decision, evidence of driver error, such as drunkenness, was thought to be unrelated to the crashworthiness of the vehicle and that evidence was not allowed to be introduced at trial. This bill reverses that decision.

A lobbyist for big business told The Naples News that it’s only fair that a jury has all of the critical pieces of information to make an informed decision despite the fact that driver error is unrelated to whether a product is defective in its manufacture, design, or marketing. Big business hopes this means more businesses will consider moving to business-friendly Florida, all at the expense of the citizens of Florida who just lost a level playing field in court. And taxpayers will end up paying the bills for medical expenses that result from these injuries instead of holding automakers responsible for their mistakes.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident in Florida and you suspect your vehicle failed to protect you as it is designed to do, the Florida auto product liability attorneys at Farah & Farah can help you understand the legal options available to you in order for you to receive the compensation you need and deserve from a negligent manufacturer. To learn how we can help you, call our law offices today.

The Consumerist, a publication of Consumers Union, reports on a new study that finds up to one-quarter of the chicken, beef, pork, and turkey sold in the grocery store harbors a drug-resistant form of a common bacteria. Researchers reporting for the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases purchased 80 brands of meat from 26 grocers in five U.S. cities and found half of the meat had the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, and 52 percent contained a strain of the bacteria that is resistant to at least three different types of bacteria. Researchers from Northern Arizona University were surprised by the prevalence of the antibiotic-resistant Staph.

Antibiotics are used in food production, fed to animals to reduce disease and promote growth. The practice is common in a “factory farm” operation where a large number of animals are crowded together, increasing the risk of spreading a contagious disease. The bacteria were found in the animal’s muscle meat indicating it came from feed. Staphylococcus aureus causes skin infections, sepsis, pneumonia, or endocarditis and was found in 47 percent of the meat samples. The bacteria were not among the four routinely tested in meat by the government which includes Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, and Enterococcus. Those with weak immune systems are most likely to be sickened or die from bacterially contaminated food which infects more than two million annually. Bacteria can be killed by cooking the meat to the recommended temperature, determined by using a meat thermometer. However, the bacteria is left behind on surfaces and utensils used in food preparation.

If you suspect a food-borne illness or recalled food product has caused you or a loved one to suffer an illness or injury, the Florida food recall attorneys at Farah & Farah are just a phone call away to discuss your case and the chance for recovery of medical bills and lost wages.

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.

Following reports of dangerous Toyotas and unintended acceleration, unprecedented recalls, a $16.4 million fine for hiding information about a defective gas pedal from federal regulators, and a denial of any electronics malfunctions, the Japanese automaker Toyota is feeling the fallout of bad press. According to The Los Angeles Times, the U.S.-based Ford Motor Company has now surpassed the usually reliable Toyota brand in the consumer group’s 2011 Car Brand Perception Survey.

According to the survey, Honda ranks as number one, with 25 percent of those participating in the survey calling it the best quality automobile. Ford came in second, with 23 percent responding in their favor, while Toyota ranked third at 19 percent. The remaining two spots were taken by Chevrolet (16 percent), and Mercedes-Benz (15 percent).

Ford outsold Toyota last year for the first time in four years.

All of the promotional campaigns launched by Toyota after the much publicized deadly runaway vehicle recalls pushed the Toyota brand to highest in overall brand perception which includes value, quality, safety, and performance. Ironically, the survey comes following the $10 million award to the survivors of the Mark Saylor family who in August 2009 perished over a San Diego mountain in a runaway Toyota Lexus. The settlement amount could set the bar for the other wrongful death and defective product lawsuits currently pending against Toyota.

Earlier this year, ABC News reported that 39 deaths have been blamed on unintended acceleration in Toyotas, while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reportedly received at least 2,500 complaints about suddenly accelerating Toyotas since 1970.

If you or a family member has experienced an injury or death as the result of a defective automobile or defective automobile component, the Jacksonville product liability attorneys at Farah & Farah would like to help you get started finding some answers and seeking compensation to cover your medical bills and lost wages.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is investigating a multi-state outbreak of two types of Salmonella – Baildon and Hartford. Both of these types of salmonella serotypes are rare. DNA is used to type the bacteria. Since mid-April, at least 155 people who have purchased food from Taco Bell locations in 21 states have become infected with Salmonella Hartford or Baildon, including one case in Georgia for each type of contamination.

Symptoms began between May 11, 2010 and July 19, 2010 and the median age is 47 years. Seventy-four percent of patients are female. Among the 68 patients with available hospitalization information, 27 (40%) were hospitalized, reports the CDC with no deaths reported.

When CDC investigators and public health officials talked to those affected they found one thing in common – indications are that eating at Taco Bell was associated with the illness. Although no specific food or ingredient has been identified as the culprit, symptoms have shown up at 22 different Taco Bell restaurants.

The company, owned by Yum Brands, should know better. In 2000, contaminated green onions were determined to be the source of food poisoning. In 2006, it was E. coli from lettuce that sickened many who ate at Taco Bell.

Symptoms of Salmonella poisoning usually begin up to 72 hours after consuming contaminated food. Fever, diarrhea, cramps, and vomiting can result. Reiter’s syndrome, which is a form of arthritis, meningitis, sepsis and death can result in some of the vulnerable population.

In the case of Taco Bell, it could be found legally responsible or liable to compensate those who have experienced a loss of income, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, among other damages. A Jacksonville personal injury attorney can help you understand your rights.

A consumer group has issued an ultimatum to McDonald’s, according to www.consumeraffairs.com – do away with the Happy Meals or else. The Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), has promised it will file a class action complaint against McDonald’s because providing toys with unhealthy food to encourage children to eat unhealthy food is illegal under consumer protection statutes in California, Texas, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and New Jersey. CSPI may have got a little overboard when it compared McDonald’s to a child molester.

“McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” says CSPI attorney Stephen Gardner.

In response, McDonalds says it is committed to a responsible approach to its menu and is offering more healthy choice options than ever before. Many parents may succumb to an occasional McDonald’s out of convenience and children’s choice, so this approach has the potential to backfire.

Ever since 1979, McDonald’s has offered the toy as part of the Happy Meal. Often it partnered with Disney to co-promote the latest movie, however, Disney ended that relationship in 2006, perhaps because of the increasing focus on childhood obesity.

This is not the only time McDonald’s has faced litigation over its food. The American Heart Association sued and settled with McDonald’s over the amount of trans fats in its food. The settlement reached in 2005, amounted to $7 million with another $1.5 million for an advertising campaign to inform the public about the dangers of trans fats. After that, McDonald’s began cooking its fries without trans fat oils.

At the end of the day this is no joke. Twenty-three years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that no states had an obesity rate of more than 14%.

Today, there are only four states with obesity rates less than 20%.

In the South, the obesity rate averages 27%. That means almost one out of three people are obese. This is not sustainable and it can be slowed beginning with our children.

It was a tragic early end to actress Brittany Murphy. A coroner has ruled that the drugs that killed the 32-year-old were common cold medications mixed to create “multiple drug intoxication.” Murphy had a cold and respiratory infection and self-medicated before she was found dead in her Hollywood Hills home December 20. The coroner says she had multiple medication-hydrocodone, acetaminophen and chlorpheniramine. She also had L-methamphetamine in her body.

How does one get these medications? Likely from your own medicine chest. Acetaminophen and hydrocodone make up Vicodin. Chlorpheniramine is an active ingredient in some over-the-counter medications. And L-methamphetamine is found in some inhalers. These are legal drugs. Murphy reportedly suffered heavy menstrual periods and had a chronic iron deficiency. That leaves someone vulnerable to infection. The drug Vicoprofen relieves pain from menstrual cramps and includes hydrocodone and ibuprofen. At the time of her death she was suffering from pneumonia. The coroner has concluded that this death was accidental and entirely preventable.

Over-the-counter drugs are generally taken without a doctor’s supervision and are considered safe when used as directed. There are exceptions. Remember the 14 pediatric cold and cough formulations pulled from drug store shelves in late summer 2007? In children the drugs had reportedly caused hallucinations, heart problems and even death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports unintentional poisoning deaths increased from 12,186 in 1999 to 20,950 in 2004. OTC drugs also do not generally come with a warning about combining them with other drugs. Then a third reaction is possible and not predictable. For example, Tylenol (and its active ingredient acetaminophen) is in a lot of other drugs such as Vicodin and Percocet. So if you take Tylenol that day as well as Vicodin, you may be overloading your liver, and damaging it. Murphy joins the ranks of other celebrities who didn’t think there could be anything wrong with over-the-counter drugs, after all they are legal. That includes Heath Ledger, Chris Farley and Michael Jackson, and those are only the famous folks. Everyday people take OTC drugs and assume they are safe. What’s interesting is that reports indicate that she was not a drug user, referring to illegal drugs, but when OTC drugs can have the same lethal consequences, the only difference is the law. #

Source Article: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/25/brittany.murphy.autopsy/

Expect school lunches to look a lot different from the standard mac and cheese and hot dogs after this summer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is launching its most sweeping reforms for the National School Lunch Program. In particular, ground beef will have to be ‘safe, wholesome and high quality” as well poultry, eggs and produce that feeds 31 million students every school day. One has to wonder, what were the standards prior to this? Did we not always vow to provide school children with the highest quality food possible?

When USAToday tried to answer that question in an investigation, the newspaper found that beef bought by the USDA intended for school lunch programs often does not get the same rigorous testing that fast-food chains undergo. And suppliers with a spotty record are not prevented from continuing to supply food for school lunches. So beginning this summer, expect testing for salmonella, E.coli 0157:H7 and other contaminants to be increased. The bacterial counts allowed will be lower. And the testing standards must meet those commercial buyers expect. Why should food for school children be any less than what a corporate fast-food establishment has come to expect?

Source Article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-02-15-schoollunch15_ST_N.htm

A product liability lawsuit has been filed against Pepsico, Inc. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc, Metal Container Corporation, and New Albertson’s Inc, by a California law firm.

The suit alleges that a Diet Pepsi can exploded in the hand of Lynda Ryan which forced the pull tab to eject and fly at a high rate of speed into Ryan’s left eye and caused catastrophic damage that resulted in 100% vision loss.

Personal Injury from Consumer Products

According to the records so far, Ryan purchased a 12-pack of diet Pepsi form Albertson’s retail outlet in Blythe, California in July 2008. She placed the cans of soda in an ice chest in the back of her vehicle. Over the next few days, Ryan consumed most of the beverages without incident and with no problems with the cars. But on July 9, 2008, Ryan removed one of the three remaining cans and opened it as she normally does. She did not shake the can. But when she pulled the tab the can exploded causing the piece of metal, which usually stays attached to the can to break off and into her left eye.

The Bisnar Chase law firm says the defendants knew or should have known there were inherent vices and defects in the design and manufacturing of Pepsi containers. “We allege that, in order to save money, the defendants used thinner and thinner thickness of the metal used to make the cans and top until it reached the point that the metal would unexpectedly break under normal pressure and usage by consumers, thereby putting profits over the safety of its customers,” says Brian Chase.

Product Liability Injury

Essentially, the companies involved put into the stream of commerce a defective and unsafe product that was likely to eventually hurt someone if used in a normal fashion. Our hearts go out to Ms Ryan who has suffered severe globe rupture, extensive corneal laceration, lens destruction, a corectopic traumatic cataract, among other medical problems with her left eye. She has undergone extensive treatments and she suffers severe pain and mental suffering. Her injuries may be permanent. If you have been injured catastrophically by a product that did not work as promised, an injury attorney will help represent you in seeking the economic damages for the catastrophic injuries and the cost of ongoing medical expenses, the loss of income due to your injuries as well as damages for permanent pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish. You should never be hurt by products that your purchase with the assurance that they are safe for your consumption. #

Source Article: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/01/prweb3475234.htm

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/