January 28th, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
At least 103 cases of sudden, uncommanded acceleration in Toyota and Lexus vehicles have been documented in Texas since 2000, mostly involving the popular Toyota Camry and Lexus ES models.
The figures are compiled by Safety Research & Strategies Inc., a private safety advising and consulting service, from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and complaints the firm received directly.
None of the documented cases resulted in fatalities, but the firm said some deadly accidents are still being investigated.
Sean Kane, head of Safety Research, said the organization noticed a rise in Toyota complaints over the years.
“We’ve been monitoring this for a while,” Kane said. “We only really dove in deep in the last year or so.”
He said the Dec. 26 crash in Southlake of a Toyota Avalon that ran into a pond, killing all four people aboard, has not been confirmed as an uncommanded acceleration case and is not included in the Safety Research database.
In many cases the vehicle suddenly accelerates. In others, it accelerates when the driver applies the brakes.
A Dallas attorney representing clients considering lawsuits against Toyota, said there could be a problem with electronic accelerator controls, probably caused by electrical interference.
Here are some cases in Safety Research’s database:
In 2002, Toyota issued a warning about installing two-way radios in its newly redesigned Camry, which could affect electronic controls involving fuel injection, throttle and cruise control, according to Safety Research. In August 2002, Toyota issued a service bulletin to dealers about the electronic control module to address engine surging.
Five people in a 2008 Lexus ES350 near Houston suffered “severe cuts and bruises” when the vehicle accelerated as the driver hit the brakes. The driver swerved to miss other cars, crossed a median and hit small trees before being stopped by a brick wall. Witnesses said the brake lights were on as the car accelerated.
In January 2009, an Austin resident reported that a Lexus IS250 suddenly accelerated from 50 mph to 80 mph and eventually crashed. An examination later showed the brake pads melted from severe heat as the driver tried slow the car.
(original story can be found at www.star-telegram.com)Online: www.safetyresearch.net/toyota-sudden-unintended-acceleration
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
January 22nd, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
ABC World News (1/21, lead story, 3:10, Sawyer) reported, “Breaking news this evening. Toyota is recalling 2.3 million cars and trucks tonight, trying to tackle the frightening problem of cars suddenly speeding out of control.” The CBS Evening News (1/21, story 8, 0:20, Couric) noted that “late last year Toyota recalled more than four million vehicles because the accelerator pedal can get stuck in the floor mats. Well, today another huge recall. More than two million Toyotas covering eight model years from 2005 to 2010. The accelerator can get stuck in those vehicles as well, even without a floor mat.”
The most recent recall, according to NBC Nightly News (1/21, story 6, 0:20, Williams), “is in addition to 4.3 million Toyotas recently recalled for a floor mat problem that could cause the accelerator to stick.” The New York Times (1/22, B8, Bunkley) points out, “The first recall was to fix a design flaw that could cause the gas pedal to become trapped under the floor mat.” But Toyota “continued to be dogged by reports of unintended acceleration and stuck pedals even in cases where the floor mats had been removed, a stopgap measure recommended” by the company. The Times says the recall affects some year models of the Avalon, Camry, Tundra, Sequoia, RAV4, Corolla, Matrix, Highlander, and “the Pontiac Vibe, a mechanical twin to the Matrix.” Not affected are “Lexus or Scion models” or the Prius.
The AP (1/22, Strumpf, Manning) reports Toyota said yesterday’s “recall is due to potential problems with the actual gas pedal mechanism, causing the accelerator to become stuck regardless of whether the vehicle contains a floor mat.” That automaker “said in certain rare cases, the gas pedal mechanism wears down, causing the accelerator to become harder to press, slower to return or, in some cases, stuck.” The Wall Street Journal (1/22, Linebaugh) reports the last recall adds pressure on the Japanese automaker whose reputation in product safety and quality may be at stake due to a series of recalls in the US. The Los Angeles Times (1/22) and USA Today (1/22, Healey, et al.) also report the recall.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
January 12th, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
Date Published: Monday, January 11th, 2010
A recent report on the ABC News Program 20/20 highlighted the dangers posed by aged tires. Apparently some retailers, including Wal-Mart and Sears, are selling tires that are as much as 12-years-old as new. Though the tires have never been used, they are far from safe.
Research and tests show that as tires age, they begin to dry out and become potentially dangerous. The British Rubber Manufacturers Association, which also includes the major tire makers, has warned that “unused tyres (sic) should not be put into service if they are over 6 years old.” Ford Motor Company has also urged the federal government to impose a six year expiration date for tires. More Aged Tires Sold as New Putting Consumers at Risk
(original story can be found at www.newsinferno.com)
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
January 7th, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
WASHINGTON – Leading the call for a cultural shift in how Americans view safe driving, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today challenged over 250 safety experts, industry representatives, elected officials and members of the public to help put an end to distracted driving. The Secretary’s call to action kicked off a two-day Distracted Driving Summit in Washington, DC that will highlight the under-recognized dangers of distracted behavior behind the wheel.
“Every single time someone takes their eyes or their focus off the road – even for just a few seconds – they put their lives and the lives of others in danger,” said Secretary LaHood. “Distracted driving is unsafe, irresponsible and in a split second, its consequences can be devastating.”
Secretary LaHood today announced new research findings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that show nearly 6,000 people died in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver, and more than half a million were injured. On any given day in 2008, more than 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone using a hand-held cell phone.
Across the board, federal researchers who have directly observed drivers of all ages found that more and more people are using a variety of hand-held devices while driving – not just cell phones, but also iPods, video games, Blackberrys and GPS systems. In particular, cell phone use for talking and texting is now more prevalent on our nation’s roads, rail systems and waterways, carrying a dangerous potential for accidents.
Cell phones and texting are now the primary means of communication for many people, especially young adults. NHTSA’s research shows that the worst offenders are the youngest drivers: men and women under 20 years of age.
“We now know that the worst offenders are the youngest, least experienced drivers,” said Secretary LaHood. “Unfortunately though, the problem doesn’t end there. Distracted driving occurs across all age groups and all modes of transportation, from cars to buses and trucks to trains. We must work together to find solutions that will prevent crashes caused by driver distraction.”
To further study how cell phone distraction affects commercial truck and motor coach drivers, Secretary LaHood also announced a new study the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is undertaking this month through June 2010. The study will help FMCSA better understand the prevalence of cell phone distraction in conjunction with crashes and near-crashes.
The two-day Summit has brought together safety experts, researchers, industry representatives, elected officials and members of the public to share their expertise, experiences and ideas for reducing distracted driving behavior and addressing the safety risk posed by the growing problem across all modes of transportation.
Authoritative speakers from around the nation have been invited to lead interactive sessions on a number of key topics including the extent and impact of distracted driving, current research, regulations and best practices. At the summit’s conclusion, Secretary LaHood will announce concrete steps the Department is taking to combat this problem.
To watch Secretary LaHood’s video blog on distracted driving or the Distracted Driving Summit live via webcast go to www.dot.gov.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
January 4th, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
Design flaws blamed for wreck that left woman paralyzed
Already on the hook for the lion’s share of a $17.7 million judgment and waiting for a decision from a jury that was out considering punitive damages, Ford Motor Co. decided to settle with a couple who sued following a Christmas 2005 wreck that left the woman paralyzed.
The agreement came after a Clayton County, Ga., jury ordered Ford on Dec. 18 to pay more than $16 million of the judgment to compensate for what the plaintiffs argued were design defects in the 2002 Explorer sport utility vehicle in which the woman was a passenger.
Lynn Wheeler, then 58, was seated in the back seat between her two grandchildren, who were in booster seats, as her son drove to church that morning along Noah’s Ark Road in Clayton County; his wife was seated in the front passenger seat, according to trial documents and attorney accounts.
A 1995 Eagle Talon, a two-door coupe driven by John C. Stanley, was coming the other way and lost control coming around a curve, slamming head-on into the Explorer.
Stanley suffered a broken leg in the wreck, while the four other passengers in the Explorer “essentially escaped with no significant injury at all,” said Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer partner Alan J. Hamilton, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
But Wheeler, who was restrained only by a lap belt, slammed forward and down as the rear seat latch failed, and it collapsed on her.
“As a result,” says the pre-trial order, “Lynn Wheeler’s head and neck were driven down and forward into the front seat and/or center console, catastrophically injuring her spinal cord.”
“She’s on a ventilator and completely paralyzed from the neck down,” said Hamilton.
In 2007, Hamilton, firm partners James E. Butler Jr. and George W. Fryhofer III, along with Ragland & Jones partner Daniel A. Ragland, filed a negligence suit on behalf of Wheeler and her husband, Douglas Wheeler, against Stanley and Ford.
The complaint asserted that the automaker’s design for both the rear seat latch and decision to install a lap belt rather than a three-point shoulder belt constituted negligence, and it also said Ford should have warned the Wheelers and the general public “of the dangers in a reasonably foreseeable collision presented by the design of the Ford Explorer rear seat, occupant restraint system and surrounding structures.”
Ford was represented by Michael R. Boorman of McKenna, Long & Aldridge; Thomas M. Klein of Phoenix’s Bowman & Brooke; and Jill D. Jacobson of that firm’s Richmond, Va., office, none of whom had responded to requests for comment by press time.
But according to the defense portion of the pre-trial order, Ford countered that at the time of its manufacture, the Explorer met or exceeded all government safety standards. The lap belt was necessary, it says, because “lap belts were necessary to accommodate some child safety seats, and were, in some situations, safer for children who did not properly fit in the federally-mandated outboard lap/shoulder belts. Additionally, it was not technologically feasible to install a lap/shoulder belt in the rear center seating position of the Explorer’s bench seat.”
As to the seat latch, it said, “Ford designed and tested that mechanism to withstand the forces generated by Mrs. Wheeler’s loading of the seat in this crash.”
Even if the latch did fail, Ford argued, it would have done so “after Mrs. Wheeler already sustained her injuries.”
Ford also argued that cargo in the rear of the SUV may have slid forward during the wreck, contributing to the load on the seat that ultimately collapsed.
Stanley, represented by Russell D. Waldon, Hilliard V. Castilla and Kimberly A. McNamara of Harper, Waldon & Craig, admitted to causing the wreck, but denied liability for the injuries Lynn Wheeler suffered, according to the order.
During a three-week trial before Clayton County State Court Judge Morris E. Braswell, the plaintiffs’ team — joined by L’Erin F. Barnes of Jonesboro, Ga.’s Fincher Denmark & Williams — presented evidence that Ford had known the dangers of lap-only belts for more than 30 years, said Hamilton, and had delayed plans to install three-point belts to save money.
“The key was that we were able to use Ford’s own documents and crash-test memos, going back to the 1960s, to show that they new about it for decades but chose not to make the changes,” he said. “Ford’s crash tests, that they were required to produce by the judge, showed the seats collapsing just like what we claimed happened to Lynn Wheeler, and the crash-test dummies’ head injuries.”
They were also able to point to similar wrecks and subsequent injuries to demonstrate “a recurring design flaw in the Explorer,” he said.
Ford’s arguments that cargo had been a contributing factor never came into play, he said.
“We were able to kill that theory with the testimony from the police officers and scene witnesses,” he said. “The only things in back were some Bibles and a child’s toy.”
On Dec. 18, the jury awarded a total of $17,716,000 to the Wheelers, including $12,716,401 to Lynn Wheeler and $5 million to Douglas Wheeler for loss of consortium.
Stanley was deemed liable $1,271,640, and Ford was to account for the rest: $16,444,761.
But the jury also found that Ford should be held liable for punitive damages and had retired to consider the amount when the automaker agreed to settle the entire case for a confidential sum, said Hamilton. He said he could not say whether the agreed-upon amount was greater than the original jury award.
Waldon, Stanley’s attorney, said he and his client were “very pleased” with outcome of the case.
“He caused the accident, no question about it,” said Waldon. “It was horrible for plaintiffs — Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler are lovely people — but her injuries also affected him deeply, more than so than any other client I’ve represented.”
The verdict “is a big win for the Wheelers, but also a huge validation for his position that, while he caused the wreck, he did not cause all of her injuries. It’s impossible to feel good about anything to do with this case, but he’s very satisfied with the outcome.”
Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans said that, given the confidential nature of the settlement, the company would have no comment. The case is Wheeler v. Ford, No. 2007CV05570E.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
