Mitsubishi Recalls 459,618 Vehicles due to Sun Visor Defect

2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse

2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse

Mitsubishi will be recalling 459,618 vehicles due to a defect with the installation of the passenger sun visor.  The problem is that during a frontal accident resulting in frontal airbag deployment, there is the potential for the passenger sun visor to detach if the sun visor is in the down position.  Depending on the position and angle of the sun visor in the down position, the deploying passenger airbag may remove the sun visor, propelling the sun visor rearward.  In a worst case scenario, the removed sun visor could strike a passenger seated in the front passenger seat, increasing their risk of injury.

The following vehicles will be recalled:

Model Year 2000-2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse vehicles manufactured April 5, 1999, to December 17, 2004

Model Year 2001-2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder vehicles manufactured January 19, 2000, to March 18, 2005

Model Year 2001-2005 Chrysler Sebring vehicles manufactured April 17, 2000, to February 21, 2005

Model Year 2001-2005 Dodge Stratus vehicles manufactured April 17, 2000, to February 22, 2005

Click here to read the full defect notice: Mitsubishi Defect Notice

A tether strap will be added to the passenger sun visor on each vehicle.  For the Eclipse Spyder vehicles, the sun visor holder will be also replaced with a countermeasure one at no charge to the customer.  Owners seeking reimbursement for any expenses associated with this recall will be directed in the notification letter to contact the Mitsubishi Customer Relations Department for instructions on how to apply for a refund.

Mitsubishi will notify their owners, and Chrysler will notify the Chrysler and Dodge owners.  The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.  Owners may contact Mitsubishi customer service at 1-888-648-7820.  Chrysler and Dodge owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403.  Mitsubishi’s number for this recall is SR-15-005.

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

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

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Toyota Recalls Over 3 Million Vehicles Due to Defective Passenger Air Bags

2007 toyota Corolla

2007 Toyota Corolla

Toyota has announced that it will recall 3,042,523 vehicles due to the defective Takata passenger air bags that were installed previously.  This announcement expands previous recalls issued by Toyota to include an additional 2,039,523 vehicles.  Toyota has issued two different recalls to expand and supersede previous recalls throughout the United States.

Click here to view the recalls:  Recall 15V285000 and Recall 15V286000

The problem is the inflators in the front passenger air bags are susceptible to rupture or abnormal deployment in the event of a crash necessitating the deployment of the front passenger air bag.  In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger’s frontal air bag, the inflator could rupture with metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants potentially resulting in serious injury or death.

The following vehicles are affected in both recalls:

LEXUS SC 2002-2007

PONTIAC VIBE 2003-2007

TOYOTA COROLLA 2003-2007

TOYOTA COROLLA MATRIX 2003-2007

TOYOTA SEQUOIA 2002-2007

TOYOTA TUNDRA 2003-2006

Recall 15V286000 expands the recall that originated in were originally sold, or ever registered, in Florida, along the Gulf Coast, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Saipan and American Samoa to include portions of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas that were not previously included.  As a result, another 769,055 vehicles will be recalled.  The total number of vehicles recalled in 15V286000 is 1,069,055.

Toyota will notify their owners.  Pontiac Vibe owners will be notified by GM.  Dealers will replace the passenger side front air bag, free of charge.  Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331.  Pontiac Vibe owners may contact GM at 1-800-762-2737.  NOTE: This recall is an expansion of recall 15V-286 and supersedes recall 14V-655 in its entirety.  For vehicles located in the U.S. states not listed above, please see Toyota recall 15V-285, which covers all other U.S. states.

Recall 15V285000 expands the recall for passenger side frontal air bags that were originally installed in the affected vehicles as well as replacement air bags that may have been installed in service.  An additional 1,270,468 vehicles were added in this recall.

Toyota will notify their owners.  Pontiac Vibe owners will be notified by GM.  Dealers will replace the front passenger air bag. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.  Toyota owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331.  Pontiac owners may call 1-800-762-2737.  NOTE: This recall is an expansion of recall 15V-285 and supersedes recall 14V-312 in its entirety.

After repeatedly denying and refusing to believe that their airbags were defective even though multiple incidents were reported, on May 19, 2015, Takata finally acknowledged the obvious and admitted that their airbags were defective.

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

Does Trinity Have Enough Money to Pay the Whistleblower Guardrail Judgment?

According to Fitch Ratings, the answer is a resounding YES.

In an article addressing that very question on Business Wire, “While the recent guardrail judgment against Trinity Industries Inc. (TRN) could potentially weaken the company’s credit metrics if payment is required in the near term, Fitch Ratings expects TRN’s operating performance will enable it to rebuild metrics quickly in such a scenario.  Fitch believes TRN has the capacity to fund litigation payments of as much as $600 million without borrowing, which is somewhat less than the amount of the $682 million judgment.”

According to Fitch, manufacturing for Trinity will increase by nearly $90 million to $250 million in 2015 from 2014 and operating revenues will also increase from incremental revenue due to the August 2014 acquisition of Meyer Steel Structures.  According to Business Wire “TRN’s liquidity at March 31, 2015 included $691 million of consolidated cash and short-term marketable securities, most of which is held at the manufacturing businesses.  In addition, $336 million was available under a revolving credit facility.  In May 2015, TRN replaced the existing $425 million facility scheduled to mature in October 2016 with a $600 million five-year facility. There are no material scheduled long-term debt maturities scheduled prior to 2024 at the manufacturing business.”

Click here to read the full Business Wire article: Fitch: Timing of Funding a Possible Concern on Trinity Guardrail Judgment

So given the pattern of corporations who are held accountable by lower Courts for misconduct, it is likely Trinity will seek refuge from the Court of appeal which at the very lest will buy it time while it improves its bottom line.  In the meantime, cases against Trinity for injuries due to defects in its guardrails will move through the Courts in various states.

This office presently represents a then 18-year-old man who suffered horrific burns in Contra Costa County when the vehicle he was riding in struck the end of the ET Plus 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.

Trademark Notice

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

, , , ,

Leave a comment

California Labor Commission Finds Uber Drivers Are Employees

On June 3, 2015, the California Labor Commission held that Uber Drivers are employees, not independent contractors, in a decision with broad potential implications for Uber’s business model.  Uber has consistently claimed that its drivers are independent contractors, and that Uber is merely a “technology platform” and not a transportation provider.  Uber driver Barbara Ann Berwick initially filed a claim with the Labor Commissioner’s office on September 16, 2014, with Ms. Berwick claiming that Uber owed her wages, reimbursement of expenses, liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties.  Rejecting Uber’s arguments that it is nothing more than a “neutral technological platform” that enables drivers to connect with passengers, the California Labor Commission found that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.”  In holding that Ms. Berwick is an Uber employee, the Labor Commission awarded her $4,152.20 for reimbursable expenses and interest.

Click here to read the full ruling: CA Labor Commission Ruling

A group of San Francisco taxi drivers, who have undergone police background checks, drive cars with meters that have regulated rates to prevent consumer gouging, have the statutorily required insurance to protect passengers as well as third parties in the event of an accident, and drive vehicles that have undergone periodic safety checks, all of which is required by law, are suing Uber on the basis it is a transportation company who has gained an unfair advantage by not complying with the law (e.g. not having insurance, not having the expense of inspecting and maintaining vehicles, or complying with other statutory requirements), and taken customers from the cabbies who are following the law.  (See San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC 12-526017)

If you would like more information on this case, please contact The Brandi Law Firm at tjb@brandilaw.com.

Trademark Notice

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

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

$663 Million Verdict Against Trinity Guardrail Manufacturer

After a jury found in October 2014 in favor of whistleblower Josh Harman in his action against Trinity Industries for making a critical change in its guardrail and then failing to tell Federal regulators leading to the jury finding a $175 million verdict under the False Claims Act.  On June 10, 2015, Texas federal Judge Rodney Gilstrap handed down a $663 million judgment against Trinity Industries, adding civil penalties of $138 million and 19 million in attorneys fees and costs.  The $138 million amounted to $8,250 for each of 16,771 false certifications made to the government and other entities to get payment for its guardrails.  In his decision, Judge Gilstrap wrote that the plaintiffs had “introduced substantial evidence” showing that Trinity “made the decision to modify the ET-Plus, conceal such modifications, and falsely certify that the ET-Plus units had been accepted” by the highway agency.

Mr. Harman, who brought the case on behalf of the federal government, was awarded 30 percent of the award, or about $199 million, given, the judge wrote, “that the U.S. government opted not to participate in the trial of this case and left the full burden” on the whistle-blower.

Click here to read the full New York Times article: $663 Million in Penalties for Maker of Guardrail

According to the NY Times report of April 23, 2015, “A prosecutor in Washington with the Justice Department’s criminal fraud division is involved in the investigation, as are special agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General is working with Justice Department officials as well, according to the people with knowledge of the inquiry.”

In December 2014, the State of Virginia filed an action against, “Trinity Industries and Trinity Highway Products, LLC for selling the Commonwealth of Virginia thousands of unapproved, improperly tested, and potentially dangerous pieces of highway guardrail equipment.  In a complaint filed in Richmond Circuit Court, the Commonwealth seeks civil penalties and recovery of costs if necessary and appropriate testing and analysis shows the products to be unsafe and replacement is necessary.  Click here to read the announcement.

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.

Trademark Notice

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

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Judge Goodwin Sets 26 Ethicon Vaginal Mesh Cases for November 2, 2015 Trial

In an effort to begin to unleash the logjam of 25,000 plus Ethicon Vaginal mesh suits in federal court, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia set a November 2, 2015 trial date for 26 Ethicon cases.  Ethicon, which is a Johnson & Johnson product has been resistant to settlement talks.

On May 28, 2015,  a Delaware State court jury awarded Deborah Barba $25 million in compensatory damages, and an additional $75 million in punitive damages.  The 51-year-old Barba was implanted with Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle and Advantage Fit mesh products in 2009, to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, according to her 2011 lawsuit.  In her trial, Barba contended that the devices caused serious complications, and despite two subsequent surgeries to try to fix the problems, parts of the devices are still in her body, continuing to cause pain.  The jury also found Boston Scientific engaged in fraud by failing to alert doctors to the devices’ faulty design.  (See Deborah Barba v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. N11C-08-050 MMJ.)

This is the sixth verdict against Boston Scientific for its mesh devices.  Previously Boston Scientific agreed in May 2015 to a proposed 119 million settlement of some 2,970 vaginal mesh cases.  In 2014, Boston Scientific won two cases before losing three in a row, including a $73 million award to a Texas woman, that was later reduced to$34 million.

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

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

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

Takata Admits Defects in Airbags, 34 Million Vehicles to be Recalled

After repeatedly denying and refusing to believe that their airbags were defective even though multiple incidents were reported, on May 19, 2015, Takata finally acknowledged the obvious and admitted that their airbags were defective.

As a result, Takata has agreed to double the number of vehicles originally recalled in the United States to nearly 34 million.  This recent development will now make it the largest automotive recall in American vehicle history.

Click here to read the full New York Times article: Airbag Recall Widens to 34 Million Cars as Takata Admits Defects

The problem with the air bags is with the inflators, which have exploded when involved in accidents causing shards of sharp metal into the vehicle.  Takata reports that manufacturing problems, together with exposure to moisture in cars in humid regions, can cause the propellant to degrade.  This causes the propellant to burn too strongly when the airbag is deployed, and ruptures the inflator.

Takata Air Bag

At this time, it is unknown which models of cars would be recalled until coordination is completed with automakers, and what the final tally will be.  Previously, ten automakers have already recalled vehicles because of this defect.

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

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

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Brandi Law Firm Obtains $26.6 Million Verdict on Behalf of Victim of State’s Negligence

On May 14, 2015, a Santa Clara Superior Court jury found in favor of Maureen Clarke (Conservator of her daughter Talbot Clarke) and held the State of California responsible for the severe injuries to Talbot Clarke, awarding $26.6 million dollars in damages for the care of the brain injured former Santa Clara University student.

On January 21, 2011, Talbot, a second year student at Santa Clara University, was crossing the seven lanes of State Route 82 at its 110 foot wide signalized intersection with Railroad Avenue as she was leaving the main entrance of Santa Clara University to cross the street to board a train at the Caltrain station, when she was struck by a car in the far lane just after the light turned green.

Through extensive discovery and trial proceedings, Thomas Brandi and Dan Dell’Osso established the timing of the light was inadequate and that there was no notice by way of countdown timer or other device showing lack of time.  The jury found the State 95% at fault and the Plaintiff 5% at fault.

 

, , , ,

Leave a comment

Toyota Recalls 636,331 Vehicles Due to Defective Air Bags in Three Separate Recalls

2005 Toyota Rav4

2005 Toyota Rav4

Toyota has announced three separate recalls, two of which are expansions or previous recalls, which involve air bag defects in older Toyota model vehicles.

The first recall involves 159,700 Toyota RAV4 vehicles manufactured May 13, 2003, to October 25, 2005 that are equipped with a dual-stage driver frontal air bag.  These RAV4s are from Toyota’s 2004 and 2005 model year lines.  The reason for the recall is that the driver side front air bag may be susceptible to moisture intrusion.  The moisture will damage the air bag, which will cause the inflator to rupture or the air bag to deploy abnormally.   The inflator could rupture with metal fragments striking and potentially seriously injuring the driver or other occupants.

Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver’s frontal air bag, free of charge. Owners will be notified by mid-July 2015.  An interim notice will be mailed if parts are not available at that time. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331.

The second recall involves 2003-2004 model year Tundra vehicles and 2004 model year Sequoia vehicles.  The total number of recalled vehicles is 176,631.  These vehicles were manufactured from March 18, 2003, to August 25, 2004.  The reason for the recall is a safety defect in the passenger side front air bag inflator.  The defect stems from excessive internal pressure causing the inflator to rupture upon deployment of the air bag.  This recall addresses both the passenger side frontal air bags that were originally installed in the vehicles, as well as replacement air bags that may have been installed as replacement service parts.  A replacement air bag may have been installed if a vehicle had been in a crash necessitating the replacement of the passenger side frontal air bag.

This recall is an expansion of 14V-312.  Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front passenger air bag.  The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.  Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331.

Finally, Toyota will recall 300,000 vehicles that affect six different vehicles models that were originally sold, or ever registered, in Florida, along the Gulf Coast, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Saipan and American Samoa.  The affected vehicles are the following:

Lexus Sc 2005-2007

Pontiac Vibe 2005-2007

Toyota Corolla 2005-2007

Toyota Corolla Matrix 2005-2007

Toyota Sequoia 2005-2007

Toyota Tundra 2005-2006

The problem is, once again, the inflators in the front passenger air bags are susceptible to rupture or abnormal deployment in the event of a crash necessitating the deployment of the front passenger air bag.

This recall is an expansion of recall 14V-655.  Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger side front air bag, free of charge.  Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-800-331-4331.  Pontiac Vibe owners may contact GM at 1-800-762-2737.

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

Trek Bicycle Recalls 900,000 Bicycles due to Lever Defect

Trek Bicycle

Trek Bicycle, based in Waterloo, Wisconsin, will recall 900,000 bicycles equipped with front disc brakes because of a defect in the front quick release lever that opens past 180 degrees.  When the front quick release lever is left open or improperly adjusted, the quick release can come into contact with the front disc brake assembly, causing the front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle.

The recall involves all models of Trek bicycles from model years 2000 through 2015 equipped with front disc brakes and a black or silver quick release lever on the front wheel hub that open a full 180 degrees.  Bicycles with front quick release levers that do not open a full 180 degrees from the closed position, are not included in this recall at this time.  There have been three incidents reported from this defect, and all have resulted in injuries.  The incidents resulted in one person being rendered a quadriplegic, facial injuries to another, and finally, an incident that resulted in a fractured wrist for the rider.  Trek advises that if you are unsure whether your bicycle has this combination, please take it to your local Trek retailer for a free inspection.  The bicycles were sold from September 1999 to April 2015.

 

Quick release lever caught in front disc

Quick release lever caught in front disc

Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact an authorized Trek retailer for free installation of a new quick release on the front wheel.  Trek will provide each owner who participates in the recall with a $20 coupon that is redeemable by December 31, 2015 toward any Bontrager merchandise.  The coupon has no cash value.

Click here to the full defect notice:  Trek Safety Recall

The lawyers at The Brandi Law Firm have represented a number of people involving defective consumer products and people injured due to design defects in automobiles and consumer products.  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

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

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 189 other followers