March 1st, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
I am Randy Roberts, the Southlake widow’s attorney, whom Ed Wallace referenced in his Toyota story posted with BusinessWeek on February 25 (as well as with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on February 26, 2010). I am posting my response to Mr. Wallace’s story on my law firm’s website because I was not permitted to post my response on his BusinessWeek website.
Contrary to what Mr. Wallace wrote, neither I nor the widow have ever received any service records on the family’s Toyota Avalon from Chris Grady or his Texas Toyota of Grapevine dealership. On February 10, 2010, I sent Mr. Grady a registered letter requesting a copy of his dealership’s records on the Hardy family’s Toyota. On February 25, Mr. Grady told my investigator that he had never received my letter. When my investigator informed Mr. Grady that we had a signed receipt for the letter from Mr. Grady’s associate (dated February 13), Mr. Grady told my investigator that his associate did not remember receiving the letter.
I would like to know when Mr. Grady told Mr. Wallace that he had “already turned over the service records” to me? How does Mr. Wallace know that the service records don’t show that the Hardy’s car had previously been brought into the dealership for a complaint involving unintended acceleration? Did he receive our copy of the service records? If he has reviewed the records, how can he be sure that those records are complete (given the questionable reliability of his sources at the dealership)? I don’t know the answers to these questions because Mr. Wallace never bothered to interview me or the widow before he wrote his story questioning the validity of the widow’s case or defending Toyota and its dealership.
Apparently Mr. Wallace also didn’t interview the eyewitness who reportedly “was unable see a driver sitting up” in the car before the accident. If he had, he would know that this witness also didn’t see the three passengers in the car. Moreover, it is not surprising that the local police found no evidence of braking (i.e., skid marks) because the car was equipped with an ABS braking system.
I have not filed a lawsuit on behalf of the widow because we still don’t know all the facts. I thought that journalists, like Mr. Wallace, were also supposed to confirm their facts before publishing a story?
Posted in Defective Products, Transportation Safety, Uncategorized | No Comments »
February 28th, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
Christine Tierney / The Detroit News
On the morning after Christmas, Monty Hardy ran his Toyota Avalon through a stop sign, broke through a fence and clipped a tree before flipping the sedan into a pond in a Dallas suburb, fatally injuring all four occupants.
The Avalon was one of millions of Toyotas recalled in November because the gas pedal could get jammed by floor mats and accelerate uncontrollably.
But when the driver-side mat was found in the trunk, the accident fueled suspicions that there was more wrong with the Toyota than the risk of pedal entrapment.
Police in Southlake, Texas, closed the investigation last month without reaching any conclusion. They didn’t rule out a defect that might have caused unintended acceleration, or the possibility that Hardy, 56, an epileptic, may have suffered a seizure.
“We couldn’t exclude either of those as factors,” said a spokesman, Sgt. Mike Bedrich.
The case illustrates how difficult it may be to prove or disprove allegations of unintended acceleration in Toyota cars and trucks. Every day, new lawsuits are filed in the United States against the Japanese giant, which may find itself mired in litigation for years.
As Congress prepares to open hearings this week on Toyota Motor Corp.’s handling of the recalls, legal experts say the company’s liability may be determined in part by any revelations that emerge in the hearings and from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Mounting cases against Toyota fall into two broad categories: lawsuits alleging economic damage to Toyota owners resulting from the shrinking resale value and lost use of their cars, and claims that people were injured or killed because of defects that Toyota may have been slow to acknowledge and repair.
One class-action suit filed by an attorney with a Cincinnati firm is pursuing Toyota under a federal racketeering statute designed to target organized crime.
Increasingly, Toyota appears to be facing its own version of Ford Motor Co.’s crisis 10 years ago over rollovers of SUVs with Firestone tires.
Echoes of Firestone crisis
“It’s very similar,” said Tim Howard, a law professor at Northeastern University who is trying to form an alliance of law firms suing Toyota for economic damages.
It’s similar in scale to Ford’s problem, with some 6 million Toyota vehicles recalled in the United States since September for acceleration-related issues. And as with the rollovers, the accidents can be terrible. “When it happens, there’s a tragedy,” Howard said. “A whole family can get killed.”
The Ford-Firestone mess cost the Dearborn automaker more than $4 billion in terms of recalls, lost output and lawsuits over a year and a half — and that doesn’t include the cost of the damage to Ford’s reputation.
The final tab for Toyota may be higher. The automaker recently estimated the near-term cost of the two recalls — one for sudden acceleration, and a second on Jan. 21 to fix pedals that could stick — at $2 billion.
Hardy’s widow has retained Randell Roberts, a Texas attorney with experience battling Ford and its tire supplier Firestone. He is waiting to see what comes out of the hearings in Washington. “I think a lot of information is going to come out in these hearings,” Roberts said.
“We want to get all the information before we decide whether to file suit and who to sue.”
Toyota would not comment on litigation or pending litigation.
“If there was a cover-up in any way, shape or form, that’s going to compound the problems when they get to the litigation and class-action cases,” said Jason Vines, who was a spokesman for Ford during the rollover crisis.
He sees similarities between Toyota’s difficulties and Ford’s. “The line of questioning will be the same: What did you know, and when did you know it?”
Litigation can drag on for years. On Friday, a California jury awarded $23.4 million to a woman paralyzed in a Ford Explorer accident.
Effort likely to matter
If Toyota can show conscientious efforts to investigate and resolve the problems of unintended acceleration, the automaker is likely to fare better in court.
Experts say the number of fatalities linked to reports of uncontrolled acceleration of Toyota vehicles — 15 when the first recall was announced, and now 34 — isn’t a big number for a company that sells close to 2 million cars and trucks a year in the United States.
Most independent auto experts and investigators say unintended acceleration is most often caused by driver error; the driver, in a moment of panic, or in an unfamiliar vehicle, may accidentally step on the wrong pedal.
Thirty years ago, Audi faced damaging complaints that its cars were prone to unintended acceleration — allegations that U.S. safety regulators now say were never proven.
Similar complaints in the late 1990s against Chrysler Corp.’s Jeep Grand Cherokee turned up no defect, said Vines, who was then working for Chrysler. The problem was either a floor mat trapping the gas pedal, or people stepping on the gas, he said.
But Toyota is increasingly facing allegations from plaintiffs’ attorneys that electronic interference with the systems in the vehicle may be causing the acceleration to go haywire.
They point to the automaker’s adoption, starting about 10 years ago, of electronic throttle control, in which the driver stepping on the gas is actually sending an electronic signal to the throttle.
NHTSA continues tests
Toyota says extensive electromagnetic testing has not uncovered any problem with the electronic throttle control. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also has not found an electronic problem in its tests of Toyotas, but is continuing to examine the issue.
NHTSA sent a team to Texas to study the wrecked Avalon but is not commenting on the case.
The Southlake Police, which led the investigation, couldn’t rule out an electronic malfunction, but saw no evidence of one, either. Similarly, the autopsy results didn’t prove or disprove that Hardy had a seizure. “That doesn’t leave a trace,” Bedrich said.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Howard is leading a drive to consolidate U.S. litigation alleging economic damage from the Toyota recalls and defects. More than 40 class-action suits already have been filed, he said.
While the damage to individual Toyota owners may seem modest, it adds up, he said.
Altogether, some 6 million Toyota and Lexus cars and trucks are being recalled, with 1.7 million of them, including the Avalon in Southlake, subject to both recalls. Assuming that each car owner wins $500 in damages, the total comes to $3 billion.
A panel of multidistrict judges will hold a hearing in San Diego on March 25 on the consolidation of national litigation.
“The vultures are gathering. It becomes a feeding frenzy from a litigation standpoint,” said Jeffrey Caponigro, president of Caponigro Public Relations Inc., with offices in Southfield and Tampa, Fla.
But the real cost to the automaker will hinge on the extent of the damage to the Toyota brand. “The effects of a tattered reputation are longer-lasting than the effects of a lawsuit,” he said.
ctierney@detnews.com (313) 222-1463
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100222/AUTO01/2220333/Claims-hard-to-prove–disprove-in-Toyota-suits#ixzz0grLQ4wsX
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
February 15th, 2010 Roberts & Roberts
Whenever an airplane crashes, investigators focus on the black-box data, which may explain why the plane went down. Though most drivers don’t realize it, two thirds of new U.S. automobiles have black boxes, too. They’re called “event data recorders.” These devices tell the airbags when to deploy, but they also record the car’s speed, whether the brake or gas pedal was engaged, and if seat belts were fastened. They’ve become such a vital tool to car-crash investigators that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued new requirements, which take effect in 2012, standardizing exactly what data the devices measure.
In theory these black boxes could help explain what’s causing the sudden acceleration problems that led Toyota to recall millions of vehicles. There’s just one catch: Toyota keeps its data secret. Ford, GM, and Chrysler’s black boxes use an open platform that allows law-enforcement officials to download data. But only Toyota is able to download the proprietary data off its devices. In fact, there’s just one laptop in the entire country capable of reading a Toyota data recorder, and Toyota will download one only under court order, or at the request of law enforcement or the NHTSA.
Though Honda and Nissan also use proprietary data recorders, Toyota’s closely guarded system is raising concerns among safety experts. “Every time Toyota downloads these things, they say there’s no indication of a problem,” says Sean Kane, founder of Safety Research & Strategies, Inc., a consumer safety group. “It’s the most opaque system I’ve ever seen.” It’s also causing frustration among accident investigators. “Even when they do perform a download, it’s usually not that useful,” says April Yergin, a Houston-based accident-reconstruction expert. Last month Yergin watched a Toyota rep download data in Southlake, Texas, after a 2009 Avalon hit a tree and landed upside down in a pond, killing all four passengers. A Toyota rep showed up with the special laptop, but it yielded only the car’s speed when it struck the tree: 44mph.
Even though Toyota models have had data recorders since 1999, the company downplays the usefulness of the data, saying the devices were intended to aid research on safety systems like airbags. “It was not designed as a tool for accident reconstruction, and we do not believe it yields consistent or reliable data,” says Toyota spokesman Mike Michels. Toyota says it’s supplied data in about 200 accident cases, and just once did the case turn on the numbers.
Regardless, with lawyers across the country preparing lawsuits against Toyota, there’s likely to be a clamor for more data. Michigan Rep. John Dingell is interested in the issue, too: his office supplied NEWSWEEK with a Feb. 3 letter he wrote to Toyota’s CEO asking if its black-box data could be easily read by people other than Toyota employees—and if not, why? Yergin says, “They’re going to be sorry they’ve made the system so closed.” As Toyota’s problems move into the courtroom, the company may have to learn to share.
With Mark Hosenball
(original story can be found at www.newsweek.com)
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
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 | 3 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 »
November 25th, 2009 Roberts & Roberts
Extending the company’s largest recall ever, Toyota announced on Wednesday it will replace the accelerator pedals on the 3.8 million vehicles it recalled in September. The original recall was for faulty floor mats accused of jamming accelerator pedals.
After the September recall, Toyota claimed the problem resolved, with no further defects to be found on the vehicles. However, the Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration reminded Toyota its investigation was ongoing, with the latest recall a result of probe.
Vehicles involved in the latest recall include the 2007-2010 Toyota Camry, 2005-2010 Toyota Avalon, 2004-2009 Toyota Prius, 2005-2010 Toyota Tacoma, 2007-2010 Toyota Tundra, 2007-2010 Lexus ES 350, 2006-2010 Lexus IS 250 and 2006-2010 Lexus IS 350. In order to resolve the issue, Toyota will install a re-shaped accelerator pedal and replace the vehicles’ original floor mats with redesigned mats.
Additionally, recalled Toyota Camry, Avalon and Lexus ES and IS models will be fitted with a brake override system. The system is designed to cut engine power if the brake and accelerator pedals are pushed at the same time.
Toyota says it has $5.6 billon stashed away specifically to fund recalls. As such, the company should be able to function as normal while the recall is resolved.
(original story can be found at leftlanenews.com)
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
November 25th, 2009 Roberts & Roberts
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation with Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., of British Columbia, Canada, today announced the voluntary recall of more than 2.1 million Stork Craft drop-side cribs, including about 147,000 Stork Craft drop-side cribs with the Fisher-Price logo. The recall involves approximately 1,213,000 units distributed in the United States and 968,000 units distributed in Canada.
CPSC urges parents and caregivers to immediately stop using the recalled cribs, wait for the free repair kit, and do not attempt to fix the cribs without the kit. They should find an alternative, safe sleeping environment for their baby. Consumers should contact Stork Craft to receive a free repair kit that converts the drop-side on these cribs to a fixed side.
The cribs’ drop-side plastic hardware can break, deform, or parts can become missing. In addition, the drop-side can be installed upside-down, which can result in broken or disengaged plastic parts. All of these problems can cause the drop-side to detach in one or more corners. When the drop-side detaches, it creates space between the drop-side and the crib mattress. The bodies of infants and toddlers can become entrapped in the space which can lead to suffocation. Complete detachment of drop-sides can lead to falls from the crib.
CPSC, Health Canada, and Stork Craft are aware of 110 incidents of drop-side detachment; 67 incidents occurred in the United States and 43 in Canada. The incidents include 15 entrapments; 12 in the U.S. and three in Canada. Four of the entrapments resulted in suffocation: a 7-month-old in Gouverneur, N.Y.; a 7-month-old in New Iberia, La.; a 6-month-old in Summersville, W.Va.; and a 9-month-old in Bronx, N.Y. Included in these incidents are 20 falls from cribs; 12 in the U.S. and eight in Canada. Fall injuries ranged from concussion to bumps and bruises. The cribs involved in these incidents had plastic drop-side hardware that had broken, missing, or deformed claws, connectors, tracks, or flexible tab stops; loose or missing metal spring clips; stripped screws; and/or drop-sides installed upside-down.
This recall involves Stork Craft drop-side cribs and Stork Craft drop-side cribs with the Fisher-Price logo. This recall does not involve any cribs that do not have a drop-side. This recall does not involve any cribs with metal rod drop-side hardware. It involves only those cribs with plastic trigger and one-hand-system drop-side hardware.
This recall includes Stork Craft cribs with manufacturing and distribution dates between January 1993 and October 2009. This recall also includes Stork Craft cribs with the Fisher-Price logo that have manufacturing dates between October 1997 and December 2004. The Stork Craft cribs with the Fisher-Price logo were first sold in the U.S. in July 1998 and in Canada in September 1998. The cribs were sold in various styles and finishes. The manufacture date, model number, crib name, country of origin, and the firm’s name, address, and contact information are located on the assembly instruction sheet attached to the mattress support board. The firm’s insignia “storkcraft baby” or “storkling” is inscribed on the drop-side teething rail of some cribs. In Stork Craft cribs that contain the “Fisher-Price” logo, this logo can be found on the crib’s teething rail, in the manufacturer’s instructions, on the assembly instruction sheet attached to the mattress support board, and on the end panels of the Twinkle-Twinkle and Crystal crib models.
Major retailers in the United States and Canada sold the recalled cribs including BJ’s Wholesale Club, J.C. Penney, Kmart, Meijer, Sears, USA Baby, and Wal-Mart stores and online at Amazon.com, Babiesrus.com, Costco.com, Target.com, and Walmart.com from January 1993 through October 2009 for between $100 and $400.
The cribs were manufactured in Canada, China and Indonesia.
For additional information, contact Stork Craft toll-free at (877) 274-0277 anytime to order the free repair kit, or log on to www.storkcraft.com
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
