Nashville Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

Nashville Hit-and-Run Leaves 26 Year old Dead on I-24

George Fusner — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:13:50 GMT

On November 9^th at 1:20 a.m. a 26-year-old Nashville woman was traveling west on I-24 in a 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer. The driver veered off onto the right shoulder and onto the rumble strips. She overcorrected, and swerved across multiple lanes of traffic, hitting a concrete median wall. The Trailblazer’s door swung open and the driver was ejected onto the interstate. A blue car, believed to be a Ford Mustang, struck the driver, but did not stop – police are still looking for this driver. It’s not yet known whether the driver died from the impact, the ejection, or from being run over. Any information leading to the identification of the driver of the blue Mustang should call 862-7738.

Few points:

1. Why did the Trailblazer’s door open on impact? That is not typical nor should it have been design to do this. This occurring may have been a result of a product defect, and more facts may surface to support this assumption.
2. Always wear your seat belt. This is a case where the driver’s life might have been saved by buckling up. However, what if teh seat belt failed? Another product defect.
3. If alcohol wasn’t involved in this crash, what was?. Distracted driving can be as dangerous as drunk driving, and may very well have caused the driver to veer into the right shoulder. And remember, texting while driving is now illegal in Tennessee.

Another example of why investigation EARLY rather than later is critical. The car needs to be preserved. Sure Metro or the THP did an investigation. However, for who?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Vehicle Safety: Today and the Future (Audi takes the lead.)

George Fusner — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:34:25 GMT

It was 50 years ago the three point safety harness (also known as the seat belt) was invented, and pioneers in the industry have been working to make a safer vehicle ever since. I’ve already talked about radar cruise control, so I thought instead I’d go through a recent Audi press release concerning their high-tech new safety features found in some of their vehicles. Features include:

Ø Adaptive restraint system – Front end crashes were once extremely deadly. Thanks to the safety advances over the last 50 years, that’s no longer the case. However, while airbags and seat belt locking mechanisms are effective in mitigating the impact of a high speed collision, they can sometimes do more harm than good in slower accidents. The force of the airbag can sometimes be so strong that it injures the person unnecessarily. The adaptive restraint system is a broad term where the seat belts and airbags act responsively to the impact of the crash, so that in a lighter crash, air bag deployment is only as powerful as it needs to be – preventing injury from the crash itself along with the airbag deployment.
Ø Airbag Valves – when the airbags are deployed in a low to moderate speed accident, small valves on the backside of an airbag will allow the airbag to “deflate,” only as much as necessary, to prevent too much force striking the passengers.
Ø Belt force limiter – in a moderate crash, a lighter person in a traditional vehicle may be subject to a thorax injury because the passenger’s body does not reach the airbag. Audi’s system will intelligently disengage if necessary to allow the passenger’s body to reach the airbag, which will reduce the chance for injury. In an extreme accident, though, the system will not disengage – which is a good thing.
Ø Seat position memory – to go along with the adaptive restraint system, the Audi’s computer knows the location of the seat on its rails, whether close up or far away from the steering wheel. Accordingly, it uses this data to help the adaptive restraint system work more effectively.

These are amazing features – but this isn’t an advertisement for Audi. (I watched the Audi race cars at Road Atlanta at the Petit Le Mans several weeks ago and have to admit some prejudice.) Other competitors in the Audi’s price range offer similar features. The real question is how long will this take until it reaches more masses – that is, when will moderately priced vehicles such as the Toyota Camry, or the Honda Accord, get these technologies? Even further than that, how long until the Hyundai Accent and Chevrolet Aveo have these features? The technology is here. Manufactureres have no excusses, use it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

New Safety Technologies Become Mainstream

George Fusner — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:14:33 GMT

Only a few years ago Mercedes unveiled to the world “radar cruise control.” It allows driver to set a speed, much like normal cruise control found in nearly all vehicles today. However, if the vehicle ahead is traveling slower – the car will automatically slow down, or even brake to a stop. The technology improved further since – Lexus’ version now offers collision-prediction technology, where the seat belts tighten and brakes are applied when an unavoidable collision is imminent.

Other technologies over the last years seek to prevent accidents by alerting drivers of impending danger. Nearly all luxury manufacturers now offer safety alert systems, and most mainstream luxury vehicles now offer blind-spot alert systems.

These technologies appear to be working, too. According to ABC News and the Federal Highway Association, traffic fatalities in 2008 were the lowest in 48 years, and preliminary reports show further decline in 2009. Just as importantly, as these technologies age, they become less cost prohibitive to put into less expensive vehicles. The Ford Taurus now offers three different technologies similar to what I talked about earlier. As time goes on, more and more affordable vehicles will offer these new technologies which could help prevent accidents, or mitigate the damage.

What does this mean from an attorney’s perspective? This means that the argument that a safety feature was cost prohibitive to include in a vehicle is more difficult to make. It means auto manufacturers must take it upon themselves to adopt these technologies if they can prevent an auto accident. And finally, it means that as these effective tools become more affordable, auto manufacturers have no excuse not to protect their customers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Defective IKEA Roman Blinds Recalled

George Fusner — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:25:51 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) has issued a recall of Roman Blinds manufactured and sold by IKEA. The voluntary recall has been prompted by a near strangulation of a 2-year-old boy when his mother found him hanging from the looped bead chain. Luckily the boy survived, but others, particularly infants, may be at risk of strangulation due to the design of the blinds.

All sizes and colors of these blinds are being recalled. They were sold nationwide from August 2006 to June 2008 at prices between $20 and $40. They have a sewn-in label at the top edge of the blind with the IKEA logotype, article name (MELINA), 5-digit supplier number 19395, four digit date stamp (YYWW), and the words “Made in Taiwan.” The blinds are 100% polyester.

I recently reported a recall of defective infant bassinets. In that case, the manufacturer is out of business and those injured may have nowhere to turn. Not the case with IKEA, as it’s a profitable business which is expanding even in today’s economic climate.

Not sure if you have this model of blinds? Make sure to check out CPSC’s recall page. It has detailed pictures and videos on the site. Additionally, IKEA’s own website has a page dedicated to product recalls in America. Find that here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Defective Infant Bassinets Recalled

George Fusner — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:02:49 GMT

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") renewed a recall on defective Infant Bassinets today. The announcement outlined in great detail the defects and recall. If you think you might have one of these bassinets check out the announcement and descriptions very carefully.

I hope and pray that you do not have a loved one who may have been injured by one of these cribs. Although clearly liable for producing a dangerous or defective product the responsible party may escape. My preliminary research has indicated that the manufacturer is out of business. Its assets were purchased by an alphabet soup company formed by one of the private venture capital firms. That entity also appears to be out of business. Hopefully there is some products liability insurance still available for these injuries and deaths.

In Tennessee the retail seller of the bassinets can also be held liable for the injuries and death. In the announcement by the CPSC a list of stores including Wal-Mart is identified. Hopefully the remaining units have been taken off the market. Check your bassinet and return it if in ANY doubt.

Lastly, read the description in the article as to the actual defect.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Enterprise Rent A Car Deletes Safety Feature

George Fusner — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:45:35 GMT

The Kansas City Star reported today that Enterprise Rent A Car ordered cars from General Motors without a proven safety feature. This saved them a reported $11.5 million. The thrust of the story is that they then resold the used cars but advertised them with the side curtain air bag safety feature. To "make it right" they are now buying them back at a $750 premium.

That not what is outrageous about this story. What is outrageous is the deliberate defeat of a safety device. I wrote yesterday about the 50 year birthday of the three point seat belt. How many lives were saved and serious injuries avoided by this device?

What are side curtain airbags and what do they do? Edmunds has a good article on the subject. A couple of quotes:

When you're shopping a family car, you probably use the frontal crash test ratings to help determine whether a vehicle will protect your family. It's actually side-impact collisions that pose the greatest risk of injury to occupants. This is because the "crush zone" — the space between the outer edge of the vehicle and the passenger compartment — is so much smaller on the side than on the front or rear of a vehicle. In response, most automakers have been outfitting their vehicles with side airbags designed to protect passengers' heads and chests.

Side airbags can protect the head, the chest or both, depending on their design. Safercar.gov is a good place to start your research, as it provides a complete list of automakers that offer side airbags along with details on the various types.

Airbags that protect the head only use a curtain or tubular design. Volvo was the first to offer head-protecting curtains, starting in the 1999 Volvo S80. Both designs typically deploy from the roofline in a downward motion, covering the majority of the windows, sometimes all of them. They offer head protection only to occupants who are tall enough that their heads would impact the window in a crash. Further, they only protect occupants seated in the outboard positions adjacent to where the airbag deploys.

I can rest assure you that if a person is injured as a result of the removal of this device a jury could very well award punitive damages. Why?

Punitive damages in Tennessee are awarded when a person suffers actual damage first. The purpose of punitive damages is not to further compensate the victim, but rather punish the wrongdoer and deter others from committing similar wrongs. The punitive damages are awarded when the wrongdoer has acted either intentionally, recklessly, maliciously, or fraudulently. This action by Enterprise fits that definition to the T.

These cases would be very similar to a company removing guards on machines to speed production and then a worker loses an arm or hand. There is no explanation but greed. I have rented from Enterprise before. Not now, there is no telling what else they have short cutted for profit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Brentwood Tennessee SUV Fire

George Fusner — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:25:18 GMT

Chanel Five News reports an SUV fire in Brentwood last night. Fortunately no one was injuried. Its hard to tell from the picture what is the make of the vehicle. However, if it is a GM product there are some ironic twists to the story.

If the owners have comprehensive insurance coverage on the vehicle the insurance company will then have to pay the actual cash value. Couch on Insurance defines actual cash value as:

In the great majority of cases, the limitation to “actual cash value” is expressed in the following terms: The insurer will not be liable beyond the actual cash value of the property at the time any loss or damage occurs, and the loss or damage must be ascertained or estimated according to such actual cash value, with proper deduction for depreciation, however caused, and will in no event exceed what it would then cost the insured to repair or replace the same with material of like kind and quality.

Then the insurance company would pursue a subrogation claim against the responsible party to recover its loss. If it was caused by a defect in the vehicle and the SUV was still under warranty, GM would pick up the tab with our governments backing.

Now the ironic part. If the fire had seriously injuried somebody or burned them to death guess what? NO recovery under the current government sponsored bankruptcy plan. Read this great post for a good explanation of what is happening.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Flammable Bath Robes Recalled

George Fusner — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:25:57 GMT

The CPSC posted a recall of bath robes that catch fire. It stated "

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Blair LLC, of Warren, Pa., are re-announcing the voluntary recall by Blair of 162,000 women’s full length Chenille Robes. Since the recall was originally announced in April 2009, Blair has received reports of six deaths due to the robes catching on fire. Five of the six victims were female, and all five were cooking at the time of the incidents. Three of the victims were in their 80s.

It also recommended that "

CPSC and Blair once again urge consumers to stop wearing the garments immediately and contact Blair LLC for information on returning the robe and to receive a refund or a $50 gift card for Blair merchandise. Contact Blair toll-free at (877) 392-7095 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday, visit the firm’s Web site at www.blair.com/recall, or contact the firm by e-mail at blairproductrecall@blair.com

However, DO NOT follow that advice if you or a loved on has been burned by this defective product. You will need the original robe to pursue any claims for injuries.

This type of case is called a products liability case. In Tennessee you have only one year from the date of the injury to file suit. Tennessee's product liability statute states:

"A manufacturer or seller of a product shall not be liable for any injury to a person or property caused by the product unless the product is determined to be in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller.

Were these robes in a defective or unreasonably dangerous condition when they left the manufacturer? Absolutely.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Defective Yamaha Rhino's In Tennessee

George Fusner — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:17:18 GMT

Many of you may have heard of the recent recall of Yamaha Rhino's by the CPSC. Why did it take over 40 deaths and hundred's of serious injuries for this to take place? I do not know, but I can guess that it was intense lobbying by Yamaha to prevent this action. The manufacturer of products want to keep selling their goods. A recall costs them sales and profits, even when the product is unreasonably dangerous or defective. Often it the Plaintiffs' lawyers that spend their money and time on behalf of the injured parties and their families that bring these situations to light forcing a recall and saving lives.

This type of case is called a product liability case. The cause of action or claim is based on strict liability rather than negligence. Tennessee Code Section 29-28-105 states that one who manufactures or sells a defective or unreasonably dangerous product is responsible to the ultimate consumer of the product for physical harm to the consumer caused by the product. Tennessee is different than most states laws in this regard. For most states a product must be BOTH defective and unreasonably dangerous. In Tennessee only one standard must be present. Either "defective" or "unreasonably dangerous." The law of Tennessee is also different than a lot of other states in that in many cases the injured party, or their heirs in the case of death, have only ONE year from the date of injury to bring the claim. Other states are much longer. However, if a year has passed still contact a qualified attorney, the one year limitation sometimes can be gotten around by filing in another jurisdiction. (I have been successful in this regard in the past.)

I have handled products liability cases in the past. From those experiences I have learned a number of lessons. First and foremost PRESERVE the product in its unaltered form. DO NOT under any circumstances allow the manufacturer or dealer access to the product. Do not attempt to repair or fix it. Second hire a qualified attorney as soon as possible. He can assist you in preserving the product. Remember the rolled over Rhino is "evidence." Rest assured Yamaha has attorneys on staff and on retainer that will respond immediately. You need that protection as well. Third be patient once you hire your attorney. He has to retain an expert familiar with the product to preserve and examine it so that he can testify in the future about the defect. This takes time. The attorneys who handle products liability cases know the experts who can help you.

As always call with any questions. I am here to assist in any way. The call is free.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by George Fusner

Lead Poisoning Cases

Rob McKinney — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:08:38 GMT

Lead poisoning cases have resurfaced on the public landscape. New theories of liability are emerging to protect our children. One thing we can agree on is that lead exposure can have very harmful effects on a developing young child. The leading source of lead poisoning comes from homes. Recently, there have been reports of lead paint on toys from China. One way to protect your child is to have a routine check for lead exposure. These tests are noninvasive and not very expensive.Beware of the hidden danger of lead exposure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rob McKinney