Ford Follows Honda’s Lead by Expanding Air Bag Recall in 463,000 Older Model Vehicles

Following Honda’s massive 5 million vehicle recall involving the defective Takata air bag inflators, Ford has announced it will expand the recall of older model vehicles that are equipped with driver side Takata airbags with inflators.  Previously, Ford had recalled only 55,000 vehicles with the defective airbags in high humidity climate states only.  Now, Ford will recall 463,000 vehicles throughout the United States and over 500,000 globally due to this defect.

The majority of the vehicles affected by the recall is the Mustang from model years 2005 to 2008.  A smaller number of Ford GT vehicles from the model years 2005 and 2006 have also been recalled.

Click here to read the full article: Ford expands Takata driver-side airbag recall in U.S.

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

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

Air Bag Failures Leads to Recall of 5,394,000 Honda Vehicles

In this year of massive and unprecedented automobile recalls, Honda launched one of the biggest of 2015 when it announced on December 15, 2015 it was recalling 5,394,000 vehicles because when the driver side frontal air bags are deployed, excessive pressure may cause the inflator to rupture resulting in metal fragments striking occupants.  It is not limited by region but covers the entire USA.  According to documents Honda presented to NHTSA, the driver’s airbag inflator manufacturer is T.K. Holdings, Inc.

The recalled vehicles are: 2001-2007 Accord (4-cylinder), 2001-2002 Accord (V6), 2001-2005 Civic, 2002-2006 CR-V, 2003-2011 Element, 2002-2004 Odyssey, 2003-2007 Pilot, 2006 Ridgeline, 2003-2006 Acura MDX, and 2002-2003 TL/CL vehicles

Honda will notify owners, and dealers will replace the inflators in all affected vehicles, free of charge. Honda has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-800-999-1009 or contact National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.

Click here to read the full recall notice: Honda Air Bag Recall

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.

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

Nissan Latest to Issue Recall on 470,000 Vehicles Globally due to Fuel Leak Defect

2015 Infiniti Q70

2015 Infiniti Q70

Nissan has announced that it will recall approximately 470,000 vehicles globally due to a production defect involving the fuel tank.  The vehicles are from the 2012-2015 models.  According to Nissan, the breakdown globally is as follows:

233,000 Japan

143,000 North America

22,500 Europe

71,500 Middle East, China, Latin America, Africa and other markets

In the United States, the affected vehicles include the 2012-2014 Nissan Juke SUVs, the 2012-2013 Infiniti M56 cars and QX56 SUVs, and the 2014-2015 Infiniti Q70 sedans and QX80 SUVs.  In other world markets, affected vehicles include the Nissan Serena, X-Trail, Patrol, Tiida and Pulsar.

The defect stems to the fuel pressure sensor located in the fuel tank not being sufficiently tightened during production.  Because the fuel pressure sensor is not tightly secured, there is an increased likelihood of a fuel leak occurring, increasing the possibility of a car fire.

Owner notification began last month for this recall.

Click here to read the full article:  Nissan recalls about 470,000 SUVs, cars for possible fuel leaks

This the third recall from the major automobile companies in the last month involving fuel leak defects.  Recently, Toyota and Ford recalled over 606,000 vehicles combined due to a fuel line defects.

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

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

Honda Set to Expand Takata Air Bag Recall in Millions of Cars after Takata Refuses NHTSA Recall

Previously, it was reported that Takata was a subject of a criminal investigation over defective air bags where 10 major automakers have recalled nearly 8 million airbags in the U.S.  The problem with the air bags is with the inflators, which have exploded when involved in accidents sending shards of sharp metal into the vehicle and making many minor incidents far worse.  This Takata air bag problem is linked to five deaths and led to worldwide recall.  Instead of the air bag preventing injuries, it is causing new and significant injuries in occupants.

Takata's Hiroshi Shimizu (l) and Honda's Rick Schostek are among several testifying in Washington, DC

Takata’s Hiroshi Shimizu (l) and Honda’s Rick Schostek are among several testifying in Washington, DC

NHTSA asked Takata to expand its recall to include the entire country yet Takata amazingly refused, creating a greater safety issue for millions of Americans.  In its letter to NHTSA, Takata said that the US regulator did not have oversight over Takata, as a car parts supplier but only over car manufacturers. Additionally Hiroshi Shimizu, Takata’s senior vice president for global quality assurance, testified that Takata’s data “doesn’t support a change from regional recall to national recall.”

Click here to read the full article: Honda expands Takata air bag recall to all 50 states

Expanding the recall to include all of the US – as opposed to Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other areas associated with high humidity – would add an additional eight million cars to the total.  Forced to confront the serious safety repercussions, Honda said it would voluntarily expand its recall to include all 50 U.S. states.

“We believe our customers have concerns and we want to satisfy our customers,” said Rick Schostek, a Honda executive who testified at the hearing.

According to the NHTSA website, the vehicles involved are:

BMW 627,615 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2000 – 2005 3 Series Sedan
2000 – 2006 3 Series Coupe
2000 – 2005 3 Series Sports Wagon
2000 – 2006 3 Series Convertible
2001 – 2006 M3 Coupe
2001 – 2006 M3 Convertible

Chrysler: 371,309 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2003 – 2008 Dodge Ram 1500
2005 – 2008 Dodge Ram 2500
2006 – 2008 Dodge Ram 3500
2006 – 2008 Dodge Ram 4500
2008 – Dodge Ram 5500
2005 – 2008 Dodge Durango
2005 – 2008 Dodge Dakota
2005 – 2008 Chrysler 300
2007 – 2008 Chrysler Aspen

Ford: 58,669 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2004 – Ranger
2005 – 2006 GT
2005 – 2007 Mustang

General Motors: undetermined total number of potentially affected vehicles
2003 – 2005 Pontiac Vibe
2005 – Saab 9-2X

Honda: 5,051,364 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2001 – 2007 Honda Accord)
2001 – 2002 Honda Accord
2001 – 2005 Honda Civic
2002 – 2006 Honda CR-V
2003 – 2011 Honda Element
2002 – 2004 Honda Odyssey
2003 – 2007 Honda Pilot
2006 – Honda Ridgeline
2003 – 2006 Acura MDX
2002 – 2003 Acura TL/CL
2005 – Acura RL

Mazda: 64,872 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2003 – 2007 Mazda6
2006 – 2007 MazdaSpeed6
2004 – 2008 Mazda RX-8
2004 – 2005 MPV
2004 – B-Series Truck

Mitsubishi: 11,985 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2004 – 2005 Lancer
2006 – 2007 Raider

Nissan: 694,626 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2001 – 2003 Nissan Maxima
2001 – 2004 Nissan Pathfinder
2002 – 2004 Nissan Sentra
2001 – 2004 Infiniti I30/I35
2002 – 2003 Infiniti QX4
2003 – 2005 Infiniti FX35/FX45

Subaru: 17,516 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2003 – 2005 Baja
2003 – 2005 Legacy
2003 – 2005 Outback
2004 – 2005 Impreza

Toyota: 877,000 total number of potentially affected vehicles
2002 – 2005 Lexus SC
2002 – 2005 Toyota Corolla
2003 – 2005 Toyota Corolla Matrix
2002 – 2005 Toyota Sequoia
2003 – 2005 Toyota Tundra

Mr. Shimizu’s statements were met with harsh criticism from multiple officials, including state senators.

In 2013, Chrysler initially refused to comply with NHTSA over a Jeep recall, but ultimately, Chrysler has decided to heed the warnings by NHTSA and recall the vehicles.

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.

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

Graco Recalls 4.7 Million Strollers due to Fingertip Amputation Hazard

Graco Breeze Model Stroller

Graco Breeze Model Stroller

Graco is recalling 4.7 million strollers in the U.S. that affect 11 different models due to a folding hinge defect.  The issue is that the folding hinge on the sides of the stroller can pinch a child’s finger, posing a laceration or amputation hazard.  The eleven models affected include the Aspen, Breeze, Capri, Cirrus, Glider, Kite, LiteRider, Sierra, Solara, Sterling and TravelMate Model Strollers and Travel Systems.  The strollers were manufactured from August 1, 2000 to September 25, 2014.  The strollers were sold at Target, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart and other retail stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com, Walmart.com and other online retailers.

There have been eleven reported incidents due to this hazard.  These incidents include six reports of fingertip amputation, four reports of partial-fingertip amputation and one finger laceration.

Consumers should contact Graco immediately for a free repair kit.  Repair kits will be available from the firm at the beginning of December 2014.  While waiting for a repair kit, caregivers should exercise extreme care when unfolding the stroller to be certain that the hinges are firmly locked before placing a child in the stroller.  Caregivers are advised to immediately remove the child from a stroller that begins to fold to keep their fingers from the side hinge area.

Click here to read the full recall notice: Graco Stroller Recall

Earlier this year, Graco issued recalls for over 4 million car seats due to a buckle 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

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

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Ford Recalls 186,024 Vehicles in Salt Belt States due to Fuel Tank Leaks

2007 Ford Edge

2007 Ford Edge

 

Ford has recalled 186,042 older model vehicles due to a fuel tank leak caused by corrosion.  The recall affects the 2007-2008 model Lincoln MKX and Ford Edge vehicles.  These vehicles were manufactured from June 15, 2006 to September 22, 2008 and originally sold or currently registered in the “Salt Belt States”.  These states include Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.  Due to corrosion from salt water exposure when road salt is used in icy and snowy conditions, the affected vehicles’ fuel tanks will begin to corrode from the fuel tank seam weld under the tank mounting reinforcement brackets.  This fuel leak increases the risk of an automobile fire.

Click here to read the full recall notice: Ford Corrosion Recall

Ford will notify owners.  The remedy is currently being developed.  The recall is expected to begin on December 8, 2014.  Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332.  Ford’s number for this recall is 14S22.

Recently, Toyota recalled over 420,000 vehicles due to a fuel line defect.  Ford earlier this year recalled vehicles in the Salt Belt States due to corrosion defects.

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

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

State Farm, Geico, and Allstate Won’t Insure Uber X Drivers

According to the San Francisco Chronicle article of November 24, 2014, State Farm, Geico, and Allstate are not providing coverage to Uber and other “ride share services”.

The largest insurer, State Farm, said it would not cover ride service activities.  “We do not insure livery use, therefore, customers should not depend on their personal auto insurance coverage to protect them while driving for a ridesharing service like Uber or Lyft,” State Farm spokesman Sevag Sarkissian wrote in an email, “A commercial auto insurance policy is needed to insure against livery use exposures.”

Allstate, the third largest insurer, has a similar policy; “In California, Allstate personal auto policies do not provide coverage if the car is for hire, so the car and its owner operator are excluded from personal auto coverage when used in this manner,” said spokesman Jim Klapthor.

State regulators say the insurers are within their rights in denying coverage.  “If consumers use their vehicles in violation of a contract which says only personal/commute use, that seems like a legitimate reason for a cancellation or nonrenewal,” said Chris Shultz, deputy commissioner at the California Department of Insurance.

Click here to read the full SF Gate article: Leaked transcript shows Geico’s stance against Uber, Lyft

What does this mean if you are a passenger in an Uber vehicle that is involved in an accident insured by one of the big three?

It means no coverage on the auto operator’s policy.

What is you are struck by an Uber operated vehicle?

It means no coverage on the auto operator’s policy.

So someone injured, while a passenger in an Uber vehicle or resulting from the negligence of an Uber operator, can find themselves injured and chasing Uber, who claims all they provide is a means of access, and are not a taxi company.

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

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 174 other followers