Second November 2014 Huge Mesh Loss for Boston Scientific

On November 20, 2014, a jury in Charleston, West Virginia Federal court found the Massachusetts Company liable to four women following a 10-day trial and determined damages for each of the four women ranging from $3.25 million to $4.25 million for the injuries.  The women used the company’s Obtryx device (Obtryx Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling System) which was used to treat stress urinary incontinence. The jurors also found Boston Scientific had acted with “gross negligence” and awarded each woman $1 million in punitive damages, resulting in a total verdict of $18.5 million dollars. U.S. District Judge Irene Berger presided over the trial of the West Virginia suits filed by Jacquelyn Tyree, Carol Sue Campbell, Jeanie Blankenship and Chris Rene Wilson over the Obtryx inserts. (Jacquelyn Tyree v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 12-cv-8633, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston)).  All of the Plaintiffs received their surgeries in West Virginia.

Click here to read the full Reuters article: Boston Scientific to pay $18.5 million in mesh case

This was not the only loss in November 2014 for Boston Scientific.  On November 13, 2014, a Miami federal jury returned a $26.7 million verdict against Boston Scientific following a trial involving claims from four women over its Pinnacle device for treating pelvic organ prolapse. It did not award punitive damages.

Boston Scientific faces over 23,000 suits for its role in the mesh tragedy according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Boston Scientific pulled Pinnacle from the U.S. market in 2011.  Boston Scientific is among seven major defendants, also including C.R. Bard and Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Inc, that together are facing more than 60,000 mesh lawsuits in federal court.

Click here to the read the full Bloomberg article:  Boston Scientific Vaginal-Mesh Victims Win $18.5 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.

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.

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

Leave a comment

Toyota to Recall Over 420,000 Lexus Vehicles Due to Fuel Line Defect

Lexus LS 2009

Lexus LS 2009

On November 21, 2014 Toyota announced the recall of 422,509 Lexus vehicles due to a fuel line defect near an ignition source that could lead to deadly fires.  Vehicles recalled are the 2007-2010 Lexus LS models manufactured from May 09, 2006 – July 20, 20, the 2006-2011 Lexus GS vehicles produced from January 06, 2005 – September 10, 2010, and the 2006-2011 Lexus IS models manufactured from August 30, 2005 – September 10, 2010.

Click here to read the full Bloomberg article: Toyota Recalls More Than 400,000 Lexus Vehicles to Fix Fuel Leak 

The problem is that fuel may leak where the fuel pressure sensor is attached to the fuel delivery pipe.  The fuel delivery pipes in the subject vehicles were manufactured with Nickel Phosphate plating to protect against corrosion but some of the pipes apparently were produced with plating particles on the gasket surface where the fuel pressure sensor is installed that could degrade and cause a leak near the ignition source resulting in a fire.

Toyota plans to repair the gasket surface of the fuel delivery pipe where the fuel pressure sensor is installed, replace the gasket with a new one, and re-install the fuel pressure sensor.  Toyota expects to begin contacting owners of the affected vehicles soon.

Ford has had similar problems with fuel line leaks over the past three years.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  Also in accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe or installed improperly.  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

Uber’s Proposed War on its Press Critics

On November 19, 2014, the San Francisco Chronicle broke a story from BUZZFEED that a senior executive at Uber suggested the company consider hiring opposition researchers to dig up dirt on its critics in the media — and specifically to spread details of the personal life of a female journalist who has criticized the company.

Click here to read the BUZZFEED article: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt On Journalists

According to BUZZFEED, the executive is identified as Emil Michael, a one-year veteran, who is Senior Vice President of the 18 billion giant.  The remarks were made at a dinner in New York at Waverly Inn on November 14, 2014.  Also, present at the dinner was Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who according to BUZZFEED, “made the case that he has been miscast as an ideologue and as insensitive to driver and rider complaints.”

Michel made the case during dinner for the “notion of spending ‘a million dollars’ to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists.  That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into ‘your personal lives, your families,’ and give the media a taste of its own medicine.”

Apparently, the Uber folks never heard of Richard Nixon’s war on the press, or numerous others, who in their arrogance tried to silence criticism.  Uber later issued a statement denying it did any opposition research or even considered it.

Click here to read the full SF Chronicle article: Uber exec: Dig up dirt on journalists

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

Takata Faces U.S. Criminal Investigation Over Defective Air Bag

Since 2013, 10 major automakers have recalled nearly 8 million airbags in the U.S. made by Japanese corporation, Takata, who is now the subject of a criminal investigation over the defective car air bags which are linked to five deaths globally, including four in the U.S.  All of these deaths involved Honda vehicles.  At least 30 more people have been injured in Hondas while a small number of injuries have been reported in vehicles made by other automakers.

Click here to read the full article: Takata says it is subject of U.S. criminal probe on air bags 

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 now finds themselves in a similar position that Toyota faced with the probe into its own delayed recall of cars with unintended acceleration problems and GM for its delay in recalling cars with the ignition switch defect that has been tied to at least thirty-two deaths.  Takata will now face the intense questioning from federal regulators, including NHTSA, as the U.S. begins their criminal investigation.  A federal grand jury in New York has subpoenaed Takata’s in the U.S. to produce documents on the subject air bag.

U.S. auto regulators are calling for additional recalls of millions of additional air bags by supplier Takata and several big automakers

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  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

$27 Million Dollar Mesh Verdict Against Boston Scientific

A Federal jury in Miami, Florida awarded $27 million to four women who were injured by defective mesh product manufactured by Boston Scientific.  Boston Scientific will not face additional punitive damages.  The jury returned a verdict finding negligence by Boston Scientific with the Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit.  The jury found that this product was unreasonably dangerous to its users and failed to warn the plaintiffs of foreseeable risks.  The Florida case is Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corp., 14-cv-24061, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).

Click here to read the full article:  UPDATE 3-Boston Scientific ordered to pay $26.7 million over mesh devices

The next case to be tried is set for December 4, 2014 against Ethicon product Prolift.  This case involves a plaintiff who has had revision surgeries since her implantation.  Motions have been submitted, and they are awaiting a ruling from the Court.

There are also a number of trials starting in state courts regarding Ethicon products.  There are trials set in New Jersey, Missouri, Texas, and California.  In New Jersey, there are 3 bellwether trials that are expected to be tried next year.  In Missouri, there is a trial coming up regarding a plaintiff that was implanted with the Ethicon Prolift device.

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.

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.

 

 

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

Leave a comment

Trinity’s Dangerous ET-Plus Guardrail Now Barred in Most States from Installation

ET Plus

Every day we see the guardrails that look like the one in this picture.  We assume they have been properly tested and are there to protect us if we go off the road for any reason.  Every day we pass them without a second thought, but these “end treatments” are creating a hazard much worse than those accidents they are meant to prevent.

This end treatment is called the Trinity ET-Plus and the physics are fairly simple: Transfer the kinetic (movement) energy from the impacting vehicle to the guardrail by having the W-shaped beam extrude through the head while the head’s breaker bars used the energy of the impacting vehicle to shear off the posts that hold the beam about 31 inches off the ground.

Click here to view Trinity’s own video showing how this type of end treatment is supposed to work.

The posts are meant to break away and the w-type rail is supposed to ribbon through the ET-Plus while it absorbs the kinetic energy if the impact.  The extruded rail is designed to curl like an old-fashioned tin can opener and let the vehicle hitting on the end decelerate with in humanly tolerable limits.

However, in cases throughout America, countless people have been injured or killed when the device failed to contain the vehicle but instead redirected it into a more dangerous path or sliced through the heart of the vehicle impaling it on the end of the guardrail.

WHY?

To understand what is happening requires looking at the evolution of this product.

The ET-Plus was a 1999 variation of the previously used ET-2000 extruder head.  It was designed, invented and developed by engineers at Texas A&M who granted exclusive licenses to Trinity.  The new ET-Plus differs from the original head in the size and shape of its face plate and in the omission or reduction in size of several of its non-structural components.

The ET-PLUS is almost 100 pounds lighter than the original ET-2000 head and expanded the rectangular box from 1’3’ to 2’4’’ as well as other changes.  The ET-Plus guardrail end terminal was originally designed having an extruder head with a width of 5 inches.

The next design changes came without notice to the Federal or State and it is these changes that are at the heart of the nationwide controversy.  In 2005, the width of the feeder channel was reduced from 5 inches to 4 inches. Around the same time that change was made, the height of the feeder channel, highlighted here in red, was changed from 15 3/8 inches to 14 7/8 inches, according to lawsuits filed against the manufacturer, Trinity Industries.

ET-Plus Modified ET-Plus
Exit Gate Significantly larger than 1” 1.0 inches
Feeder Channel Width 5 inches 4 inches
Feeder Chute Assembly Height  a.  exterior 15 3/8 inches 14 7/8 inches
Feeder Chute Assembly Length 37 inches 36 1/4 inches

 

4 in vs 5in
According to lawsuits filed across the country, these unannounced changes in feeder channel width and height end up causing injuries, rather than preventing them.

On October 20, 2014 in a Federal Court in Marshall, Texas a jury found in favor of a whistleblower and against Trinity Industries and ordered damages of $175 million dollars on a claim where the whistleblower alleged Trinity made false claims to federal regulators when it changed its guardrail design in 2005.

According to published reports the seven jurors were asked a simple question:

Were the changes that Trinity didn’t tell the FHWA about serious enough to mean that the government had paid for something it never actually received?

The jury answered ‘yes’ to that question, concluding that Trinity “knowingly made, used or caused to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.”  The case is U.S. ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Industries Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, No. 12-00089.

As of October 30, 2014, 30 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.

On November 12, 2014, Caltrans suspended installation of the ET –Plus guardrail end terminals.

On November 12, 2014, FHWA announced plans for further tests at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.

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

Ford Recalls 746,842 2013-2014 Vehicles due to Air Bag Defect

2014 Ford Fusion

2014 Ford Fusion

Ford is recalling 746,842 vehicles from their 2013 and 2014 model years due to an air bag defect.  In all of the affected vehicles, the circuit board in the Restraints Control Module (RCM) may develop a short-circuit over time.  This is because when the conformal coating was applied to portions of the RCM at the plant, the coating will crack or form cavities as the material dries and is exposed to thermal cycling.  If the cracks are exposed to humidity, lead salts may develop between terminals on the printed circuit board resulting in electrical short circuits, potentially affecting RCM performance.  If a short-circuit occurs, the airbag warning indicator will illuminate and cause the airbag not to deploy.  Other restraint systems may be affected because of the short-circuit.

Click here to read the full defect notice:  Ford Air Bag Recall

The following Ford vehicles are affected by this recall:

 

Parts are currently not available for this defect.  Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the RCM, free of charge.  Owners will be sent an interim notification in mid-November 2014.  A second notification will be sent when the remedy parts are available.  Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332.  Ford’s number for this recall is 14S21.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  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

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

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

Leave a comment

Second Uber Driver’s Arrest Shines the Light on Uber’s Failed Safety Policies

Uber has not publicly demonstrated it actually does the police background checks that SF cab drivers are forced to undergo as a condition of being able to carry passengers.

Uber has steadfastly refused to obtain the one million dollar insurance coverage  that cover vehicles driven by San Francisco taxi drivers whose companies are required to carry one million in insurance to protect passengers from others fault.  Instead, Uber, whose profits come from placing people in cars, using surge pricing while ignoring regulations to protect consumers, has sought to shift the responsibility to protect the passengers that creates its profits from placing in Uber cars to the drivers.

Uber has a simple obligation to protect the people it is charging for the “privilege“ of riding in a vehicle with less insurance than the cabs driven by a SF taxi driver on the same streets.

But Uber refuses to acknowledge that part of the privilege of profiting from serving the public is the responsibility to protect its customers.  Simple rules apply; adequate insurance and proper background checks.

Why is a company with 18 billion in capitalization so opposed to having proper insurance and proper background checks?

I wonder how many Uber riders know they are riding in a car driven by someone who may have not been vetted by San Francisco Police, and will not likely have adequate insurance if they are injured?

Uber users, next time you make use your Uber hookup, ask for verification that the driver passed a police background check and has one million in insurance like a San Francisco taxi driver.

On September 27, 2014, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that an Uber driver pled not guilty to charges of assault with a deadly weapon and battery with serious injury for allegedly hitting a passenger with a hammer.  This is the second such charge involving an Uber driver as another driver allegedly assaulted a passenger in June 2014

Will Uber standup and protect the injured, as the law would require of the cab companies?

Click here to read the full article: Uber Driver Accused of Hammer Attack on S.F. Rider

According to the article, Uber spokesperson Eva Behrend said, “Safety is Uber’s No. 1. Priority.”

Really?

Then why doesn’t Uber have the same insurance as SF taxi drivers?

With 18 billion in capitalization, it sure has the money.  Maybe safety really isn’t Uber’s No. 1 Priority.

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

The Ignition Switch that Continues to Fail: Chrysler Recalls Another 349,442 Vehicles Worldwide due to Ignition Switch Defect

2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee

2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee

The year of the defective ignition switch continues.

In their third such recall of 2014, Chrysler has announced a worldwide recall of 349,442 vehicles involving faulty ignition switches that could cause cars to suddenly turn off while driving.

This latest recall affects 5 models from the 2008 line.  These models include, the Jeep Commander and Grand Cherokee SUVs as well as the Chrysler 300 sedan, the Dodge Charger sedan and the Dodge Magnum station wagon.

Earlier this year, Chrysler expanded recall 11V-139 to include an additional 525,205 minivans due to an ignition switch defect and recalled another 643,618 Jeeps from 2006 suffering from the same ignition switch defect.

Because of this defect, Chrysler has recalled over 1 million cars.  GM, who first set off the wave of ignition switch recalls back in February of 2014, has recalled more than sixteen million vehicles alone because of faulty ignition switches.

Chrysler has given owners of the affected models a temporary prescription similar to the one G.M. has given owners of its affected models: Remove car keys from heavy key rings until the faulty part is repaired, minimizing the risk of key rotation.

Click here to read the full New York Times article: Chrysler Recalls 349,000 Vehicles for Faulty Ignition Switch

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  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

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

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

Leave a comment

Chrysler Recalls 25,483 Newer Fiat Vehicles due to Air Bag Defect

2014 Fiat 500L

2014 Fiat 500L

Another day, another Chrysler recall.

Chrysler is recalling certain model year 2014-2015 Fiat 500L due to an air bag defect.  These vehicles were manufactured from March 3, 2012, to July 25, 2014.  The defect stems from an assembly error with the driver’s knee airbag.  Irregularities were found in the folding process during assembly of this airbag.  Because of the defect, this may result in improper deployment.  As such, these vehicles failed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, “Occupant Crash Protection.”

The defect was found in June 2014.  NHTSA conducted testing using an unbelted 25 mph 5th percentile female FMVSS No. 8 flat frontal compliance test on a 2014 Fiat.  The results indicated that the driver right femur load failed to meet the minimum injury criteria.  Chrysler is not aware of any injuries related to this issue.

Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver’s knee air bag, free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin in September 2014.  Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403.  Chrysler’s number for this recall is P42.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  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

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

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 172 other followers