Toyota Recalls 110,085 Newer Model Vehicles Due to Power Steering Failure

2015 Toyota Camry

2015 Toyota Camry

Toyota will recall 110,085 newer model Toyota Camrys, Highlanders, and RAV4s due a manufacturing processing error of the electric power steering component.  The subject vehicles are equipped with an electric power steering (EPS) system consisting of an EPS electronic control unit (ECU) and a steering column assembly with an attached power steering motor, rotation angle sensor, and torque sensor.   During the manufacturing processing, a component of the electric power steering (EPS) electronic control unit (ECU) may have been damaged.  This is a result of a manufacturing error.  Over time, this defect may result in failure of the electric power steering system.  During driving, there could be an unexpected loss of power steering.

The vehicles affected by this recall include the 2015 Camry, the 2015 Highlander, and 2014-2015 RAV4.  These vehicles were manufactured between August 2014 to November 2014.

Click here to read about the full recall:  Toyota Electric Power Steering Failure

Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the serial number of the EPS ECU or steering column assembly.  If the number is within the affected range, the EPS ECU will be replaced, free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin in April 2015.  Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Toyota is a registered trademark of Toyota Motor Corporation.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Toyota Motor Corporation is not affiliated with this website, and Toyota Motor Corporation has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Toyota Motor Corporation.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Johnson and Johnson Again Leads Big Pharma in 2014 Revenues

J&J, who has seemingly survived the DePuy wars and is now facing down 22,000 vaginal mesh suits after losing mesh verdicts for its Ethicon product again leads the way in profits for Big Pharma in 2014, according to Tracy Staton writing in Fierce Pharma.

Click here to read the full article: The Top 15 Pharma Companies by 2014 Revenue

The top 15 list contains all of the traditional Big Pharma players: J&J, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck, GSK, AstraZeneca, Bayer, AbbVie, Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb, as well as some relative new comers: Gilead Sciences, Teva, and Amgen.  These 15 companies amassed 2014 sales of just under $527 billion.  J&J’s revenues increased by slightly more than $3 billion (4%), Roche grew by $1.3 billion (2.7%), Amgen was up by roughly $1.4 billion (7%), Bayer rose by $1.3 billion (5%), and AbbVie grew by almost $1.2 billion (5.8%).

J&J’s $74 billion was led by prescription drugs, which  brought in $32.4 billion for J&J last year, making pharma the biggest of its divisions.

CEO Alex Gorsky

CEO Alex Gorsky

CEO Alex Gorsky is well compensated for his leadership.  According to salary.com Alex Gorsky in 2013 made $15,171,960 in total compensation.  Of this total $1,453,846 was received as a salary, $4,867,361 was received as a bonus, $2,669,999 was received in stock options, $5,988,975 was awarded as stock and $191,779 came from other types of compensation.  This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2013 fiscal year.

J& J’s litigation in DePuy is well documented as is its efforts with vaginal mesh.

Contact Our Experienced San Francisco Drug Recall Lawyers Today

At The Brandi Law Firm, we help people throughout the country who have been harmed because of a defective drug or medical device such as Actos (Takata), Fosamax (Merck), DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), Lipitor (Pfizer), Yaz (Bayer) and Vaginal Mesh (Johnson & Johnson).  Instead of treating all victims of defective drugs and medical devices the same we take a different, more personalized approach with a team of experienced defective drug attorneys and paralegals working for every client.  Our goal is to provide you with information about your legal options and to help you pursue compensation and holding these drug companies responsible for their dangerous actions.  Please contact The Brandi Law Firm today (1-800-481-1615 or email us) to talk with the experienced San Francisco defective drug attorneys.

Trademark Notice

Johnson & Johnson is a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson Inc.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Johnson & Johnson Inc. is not affiliated with this website, and Johnson & Johnson Inc. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Johnson & Johnson Inc.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Big PHARMA Spends $4.58 Billion in Direct to Consumer Ads in 2014

Whenever you watch the news, or a sporting event, does it ever seem like there are a lot of ads for drugs? For that special moment there are Cialis and Viagra and a host of other things that nice looking people suffering various maladies suddenly get better in a 30 to 60 second span while you are extolled to “Ask your Doctor about…”, while the fastest talking person you have ever heard rockets through risks and side effects.

Eli Lilly spent $272 million on ads for Cialis in 2014 while Pfizer spent $232 million on Viagra. Past years total spending, include 2013, was $3.83 billion and in 2012 $3.47 billion.

But it is not quite the $4.17 billion spent in 2010 or the $5.4 billion spent in 2006.

Pfizer, who led in spending in 2013, again led all drug companies spending an astounding $1.4 billion on ads in 2014.  In fact, Pfizer ranked among the top 10 of all advertisers, ahead of Toyota, Chrysler, Verizon, but behind L’Oreal.

According to a bulletin of the World Health Organization, “Direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs has been legal in the USA since 1985, but only really took off in 1997 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) eased up on a rule obliging companies to offer a detailed list of side-effects in their infomercials (long format television commercials).  Since then, the industry has poured money into this form of promotion, spending just under $5 billion last year alone.  The only other country in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug ads is New Zealand, a country of just over four million people.”

Click here to read the full article: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising Under Fire 

Clearly, direct-to-consumer ads work in driving sales.  But, is a 30 to 60 second format the best way to inform a consumer of what can really happen?  But the point of the ads is to create demand and history shows it creates that and huge profits too.

At The Brandi Law Firm, we help people throughout the country who have been harmed because of a defective drug or medical device such as Actos (Takata), Fosamax (Merck), DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), Lipitor (Pfizer), Yaz (Bayer), Avandia (GSK), and Vaginal Mesh (Johnson & Johnson).  Instead of treating all victims of defective drugs and medical devices the same we take a different, more personalized approach with a team of experienced defective drug attorneys and paralegals working for every client.  Our goal is to provide you with information about your legal options and to help you pursue compensation and holding these drug companies responsible for their dangerous actions.  Please contact The Brandi Law Firm today (1-800-481-1615 or email us) to talk with the experienced San Francisco defective drug attorneys.

 

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Honda Expands Air Bag Recall to 104,871 Older Model Vehicles

Honda continues to expand the air bag recall that has affected millions of vehicles due to defective Takata inflator parts.  Honda will now be recalling an additional 104,871 vehicles as a result this defect.  In March 2015, Honda began matching Takata airbag inflator part numbers to individual VINs based on factory production records.  Through this process, Honda discovered that 88,549 units of the 2008 Honda Pilot should have been included in the original recall.  Additionally, Honda identified certain 2001 Accord (5,454 vehicles) and 2004 Civic (10,868 vehicles) that had not been properly identified by VIN as being produced for the US market, and is adding those vehicles to 14V351.

Click here to read the recall:  Honda Recall

The vehicles affected are:

2008 Honda Pilot

Manufactured May 3, 2007 to April 14, 2008

VINs

5FNYF18208B000011 to 5FNYF18508B057545

5FNYF283X8B000001 to 5FNYF28538B031186

2001 Honda Accord

Manufactured April 26, 2000 – August 15, 2001

VINs

1HGCG22581A000001 to 1HGCG22461A036745

3HGCG66591G700001 to 3HGCG66521G714452

2004 Honda Civic

Manufactured June 5, 2003 to August 2, 2004

VINs

JHMES95684S000001 to JHMES95664S022823

Honda will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver side frontal air bag inflator in all affected vehicles, free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-800-999-1009. Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 14V-351.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Honda is a registered trademark of Honda Motor Corporation.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Honda Motor Corporation is not affiliated with this website, and Honda Motor Corporation has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Honda Motor Corporation.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Pennsylvanian Jury Awards $3.6 Million Verdict in Actos Trial

On February 12, 2015, a Philadelphia jury awarded a $3.6 million dollar verdict, which included a $1.3 million punitive damage award, to John Kristufek, a former Pennsylvanian educator, who alleged that pharma giant Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.’s Actos diabetes drug was the cause of his bladder cancer.

Click here to read the full article: Takeda Ordered to Pay $2.3 Million in Damages to Actos User

After two days of deliberation, the jury found that Takeda failed to properly warn John Kristufek’s doctors about Actos’s cancer risks.  The jury found that Takeda showed “reckless indifference” to Kristufek’s health by hiding Actos’ risks.  The jury awarded $318,000 for his medical expenses and $2 million for pain and suffering tied to the cancer diagnosis.  Because of the reckless indifference finding, the jury awarded $1.3 million in punitive damages.

The Pennsylvania case is Kristufek v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  The consolidated Actos case in Louisiana is In Re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, 11-md-02299, U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette).

Actos Trial History and Lawsuits

There have been two prior verdicts for plaintiffs in California and Maryland (though those results were later overturned) and defense verdicts in Las Vegas and Chicago.  The Allen case in Louisiana was the first federal bellwether case to be tried, where the jury held Takeda responsible and ordered the big pharma giant to pay $9 billion dollars in damages.

A number of cases pending are in the coordinated California JCCP, where The Brandi Law Firm represents a number of Plaintiffs.  (Case No. JCCP 4696 Assigned to Hon. Kenneth Freeman)

If you or a loved one has had a problem with Actos or has been diagnosed with bladder cancer and took the diabetes drug Actos, you may have a claim for your injuries.  The Brandi Law Firm is a leader in nationwide pharmaceutical litigation for decades and is now representing clients who have suffered bladder cancer related to Actos use and filed suits on their behalf.  For a free consultation call us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Actos is a registered trademark of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. is not affiliated with this website, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Johnson & Johnson Pleads Guilty for Metal-Tainted Children’s Tylenol and Ordered to Pay $25 Million Fine

McNeil-PPC, Inc., a subsidiary of pharma giant Johnson & Johnson, pleaded guilty on March 10, 2015 for violating the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) with regard to infants’ and children’s liquid medications, including Infants’ Tylenol, Children’s Tylenol and Children’s Motrin.  The company has pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge and will pay a $20 million fine.  Additionally, they have been ordered to pay another $5 million for allowing Infants’ Tylenol, Children’s Tylenol and Children’s Motrin products into the market that were tainted with metals.

Click here to read the full article:  J&J pleads guilty, pays $25M tied to metal-tainted Children’s Tylenol

The complaint stems when on May 1, 2009, a complaint was received by McNeil by concerned consumer regarding the presence of “black specks in the liquid on the bottom of the bottle” of Infants’ Tylenol, which originating from its Fort Washington facility in Pennsylvania.  According to FDA documents, instead of initiating an investigation into this matter, Johnson & Johnson opted to do nothing – failing to complete or initiate a CAPA.  Court records indicate that the particles were later determined to be “nickel/chromium-rich inclusions”.   These particles are not ingredients that should have been in the products taken by children throughout the world,

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said:  “Drug quality–and especially with the medicines we give our children–is of paramount concern to the FDA. … Today’s guilty plea holds accountable those corporations who risk jeopardizing the public health by not adhering to the high standards set for drug manufacturers.”

Contact Our Experienced San Francisco Drug Recall Lawyers Today

At The Brandi Law Firm, we help people throughout the country who have been harmed because of a defective drug or medical device such as Actos, Fosamax, DePuy, and Vaginal Mesh.  Instead of treating all victims of defective drugs and medical devices the same we take a different, more personalized approach with a team of experienced defective drug attorneys and paralegals working for every client.  Our goal is to provide you with information about your legal options and to help you pursue compensation and holding these drug companies responsible for their dangerous actions.  Please contact The Brandi Law Firm today (1-800-481-1615 or email us) to talk with the experienced San Francisco defective drug attorneys.

Trademark Notice

Johnson & Johnson is a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson Inc.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Johnson & Johnson Inc. is not affiliated with this website, and Johnson & Johnson Inc. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Johnson & Johnson Inc.

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Nissan Recalls 625,000 Altimas Due to Latch Defect

2015 Nissan Altima

2015 Nissan Altima

Nissan has announced that it will recall 625,000 Nissan Altima vehicles due to a hood latch defect.  This recall is an expansion of an earlier recall that occurred in September 2014 when  Nissan recalled the 2013 model year Altima vehicles manufactured from March 6, 2012 to February 28, 2013.  Originally, Nissan recalled 220,423 with this issue.

The defect stems from the secondary hood latch of the vehicle.  In the affected vehicles, the secondary hood latch may bind and remain in the unlocked position even while the hood is closed.  The reason for the problem is interference between the hood inner panel and the secondary latch lever, in combination with debris and corrosion, causes the secondary hood latch to not lock properly.  If the primary latch is inadvertently released and the secondary latch is not engaged, the hood of the vehicle could unexpectedly open while driving.  These affected vehicles include the 2013, the 2014, and the 2015 Nissan Altimas.  They were manufactured from March 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014.

The manufacturer has not yet provided a remedy plan or notification schedule.  The first remedy back in September 2014 was for dealers to modify the bend angle of the hood actuation lever to eliminate potential interference with the hood inner panel.  In addition, dealers were advised to clean and lubricate the latch joint as needed.  If significant corrosion was observed, the latch assembly was to be replaced.   Owners should contact Nissan customer service at 1-800-647-7261.  Note:  This recall is an expansion of Recall 14V-565.  Hopefully, Nissan will come up with a fix soon.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Nissan is a registered trademark of Nissan Motor Company.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Nissan Motor Company is not affiliated with this website, and Nissan Motor Company has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Nissan Motor Company.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

J&J settles Bellew Versus Ethicon Prolift Suit on 4th Day of Trial

In what thousands of women hope is a sign of a change in philosophy, on the fourth day of trial in a bellwether case before the Hon Joseph R. Goodwin, Ethicon and J&J entered into a settlement of the case brought by Diane M. Bellew, who had a Ethicon Prolift Anterior Floor Repair System implant for pelvic organ prolapse.  (Case no. 2:13-cv-22473).  After the surgery, which occurred in Arizona, Ms. Bellew alleged she had multiple complications, including mesh erosion, mesh contraction, inflammation, dyspareunia (pain during sexual intercourse), urinary incontinence, chronic pain, and recurring prolapse of organs.  (Master Compl. ¶ 49).  In addition, she had four subsequent operations to remove and revise the implanted mesh.  (Pl. Fact Sheet [Docket 206-1], at 7).

Previously J&J sought a Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Statute of Limitation had passed. On November 24, 2014, Judge Goodwin allowed the case to go forward; denying the Statute of Limitations motion, stating:

However, under Arizona’s discovery rule, “a cause of action accrues once the plaintiff knows of the injury and the causal connection between the defendant’s product and that injury.” Mack v. A.H. Robins Co., 573 F. Supp. 149, 154 (D. Ariz. 1983). In other words, the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury and its cause. See id. at 153–54. Although “plaintiffs are charged with due diligence in pursuing their claims,” a plaintiff is not required to have knowledge of the defendant’s improper conduct or defect in the product in order to trigger accrual. Id. at 154 (citing Rodriquez v. Manoil, 450 P.2d 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969)). (http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-11-24-SJ-Order.pdf )

Of the 67,000 pending cases before Judge Goodwin, approximately 22,000 are Ethicon (J&J).

This settlement comes on the heels of a Plaintiff’s verdict on March 5, 2015 for Coleen Perry for damages from the Abbrevo sling device of $5.7 million, which was $700,000 compensatory and $5 million in punitive damages.

Vaginal Mesh Trial History

Bard has lost two jury trials, settled a third case after a jury selected, and settled a fourth before trial commenced.  In July 2012, a California jury awarded Christine Scott and her husband $5.5 million after she underwent nine revision surgeries.  Scott sued C.R. Bard in 2009 over its Avaulta Plus mesh product.

In February 2013, Linda Gross won $11.11 million in her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon brand over its Prolift vaginal mesh product.  Gross had 18 surgeries.  The New Jersey jury found that J&J failed to warn patients and doctors about the risks of its mesh products and made fraudulent misrepresentations.

On August 15, 2013, after about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury found for Donna Cisson in her vaginal mesh trial against manufacturer C.R. Bard Inc, and found damages in the amount of $250,000 and $1.75 million in punitive damages.  The jury found that Bard failed to provide adequate warnings as to the defects in its vaginal mesh product and that the device was defective.  Judge Joseph Goodwin upheld the 2 million verdict in October 2013 as appropriate and that Cisson’s attorneys proved the company’s vaginal mesh was the cause of her injuries.  In Queen vs. Bard, starting trial immediately after Cisson, a settlement was reached after the jury was selected.  Finally, Bard settled Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems before trial commenced in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Joseph Goodwin granted Ethicon’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff’s case in Lewis vs. Ethicon, Inc. (In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2327, Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 2:12-4301, S.D. W.Va.).

On April 4, 2014, a Dallas jury found for the plaintiff Linda Batiste and ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.2 million for its defective design of the Ethicon TVT-O pelvic mesh.

Two Massachusetts juries recently rejected women’s claims that Boston Scientific’s incontinence sling was defective designed and injured women.

On September 5, 2014, a federal jury in West Virginia found for the plaintiff Jo Huskey and ordered Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon to pay $3.27 million.

On September 9, 2014, a Dallas federal jury found for the plaintiff Martha Salazar and awarded a verdict against Boston Scientific of $73 million, including $50 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced to$34 million.

On November 18, 2014, 4 Florida women were awarded $27 million against Boston Scientific.

If you would like more information, check the video below, go to our website, or contact us at 1-800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Johnson & Johnson is a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson Inc.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Johnson & Johnson Inc. is not affiliated with this website, and Johnson & Johnson Inc. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Johnson & Johnson Inc.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Alliance Recalls Tires for Tread Defect

Alliance is recalling tire model number 396, size 445/65R22.5, which were manufactured April 22, 2013, to November 23, 2014, and size 600/50R22.5 manufactured May 27, 2013, to November 2, 2014, because of a tread defect.  The tires have a radial construction consisting of a steel casing and steel belts under the tread.  The problem is that the belts are becoming loose, which will lead to the tread separating from the tire.  This results in a sudden deflation of the tire.  These tires are dual-purpose tires for trucks.  They can provide traction for off-road applications, and can be used on the roadways at highway speed.  The cause of the problem is currently unclear.

Click here to read the full defect notice:  Alliance Tire Recall

Alliance will notify owners, and dealers will reimburse consumers for the defective tires.  The recall is expected to begin in March 2015.  Owners may contact Alliance customer service at 1-800-343-3276. Alliance’s number for this recall is ATG-396HS-001.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Alliance is a registered trademark of Alliance Tire Americas, Inc.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Alliance Tire Americas, Inc. is not affiliated with this website, and Alliance Tire Americas, Inc. has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Alliance Tire Americas, Inc.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

Federal Judge Orders Trinity Records to be Unsealed

ET Plus

Texas Federal Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who presided over the qui tam action against Trinity Industries, Inc., ruled on March 3, 2015 to unseal the trial exhibits and transcripts so that they may be made available to the public.

Click here to read the full article: Judge Rules to Unseal Court Records in Federal Guardrail Fraud Trial

Recall that in October 2014, the lawsuit resulted in a fraud verdict of a trebled $175 million against Trinity Industries, the maker of the ET Plus end terminal.  The lawsuit alleged that Trinity made misrepresentations to the federal government in 2005 about a modified version of the ET Plus 2005 that led the product to fail and injure or kill occupants in striking vehicles.

The case is Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., et;. al., Case No. 2:12-cv-0089-JRG.

As of December 12, 2014, 42 states are confirmed to have removed the ET-Plus from their approved purchase list, including: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

This office presently represents a then 18-year-old young man who suffered horrific burns in Contra Costa County when the vehicle he was riding in struck the end of the guardrail and was redirected down a hillside into another collision that horribly burned his entire body.  We are in extensive discovery against Trinity at this time.  If you wish any information about litigating a case involving this guardrail system, please contact Thomas Brandi at tjb@brandilaw.com or call 800-481-1615.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 181 other followers