Consumer Safety & Personal Injury

Sneak Peek of My New Book

admin — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:13:11 +0000

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Anderson Cooper Uncovers Auto Insurance Shady Practices

admin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:18:02 +0000

In this three-party series, CNN’s Anderson Cooper covers the issues that victims of car accidents have to deal with when making a claim. It’s very important that you watch all three parts.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Defective Tires and Tire Failure: Tread Separation

admin — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:06:05 +0000

Since 2000, there are have been several major recalls of tires. For instance, in the early 2000s, there were massive recalls of more than 15 million tires of several types of Bridgestone and Firestone tires (Bridgestone owns Firestone), especially those put on the Ford Explorer SUV, which resulted in a number of crashes, especially rollovers, killing and seriously injuring hundreds of motorists. For example, Firestone’s Wilderness AT tire lacked proper adhesion between the steel belts and the surrounding rubber. Firestone failed to use gum edge strips, nylon overlays or caps, or other safeguards to reduce the possibility of tread separation.

Causes of traffic injuries and deaths due to faulty tires include:

Tread separation
Tire failure
Tire blowout
Tire or rim explosion

Domestic and foreign manufacturers alike have made and marketed defective tires that have resulted in crashes, personal injuries, and wrongful deaths. However, tires made overseas (such as in China) may not be as safe as those made in the United States. Tires are not designed to last forever, even though you may drive only a few thousand of miles each year. Rubber degrades over time, and mechanics recommend that you put on new tires every five or six years even though there may be plenty of tread left on the tire.

When a tire is made, the base part of the tire is built first and then through various chemical and heating processes, steel belts are imbedded in the tire, and finally the tread is applied. Steel-belted radial tires are especially prone to tread separation. When the tread separates the driver may lose control of the vehicle, even when the tire does not lose pressure. Tread separation is usually due to some problem in the manufacturing process. The tire may be designed defectively or constructive carelessly. The manufacturer may use rubber that is too old and dry, miss warning signs during final inspection, use petroleum solvent before vulcanization, and cure moisture into the tire. Although tread separation usually occurs with a tire several years old being driven at a fairly fast speed, there have also been cases of brand new tires separating while being driven at slower speeds, such as 15 or 20 mph. Of course, the faster you are driving when you experience a tire failure due to tread separation or blowout, the more likely the chances that you will be seriously hurt or even killed.

A report from the National Highway Safety Administration revealed that tread separations reduced the ability of drivers to control their vehicles, especially when the tire failure occurs on a rear tire at a high speed. The report also found that there is a much higher likelihood for death, injury, and crashes when the tread separation occurs on a SUV than on a pickup truck.

Underinflation of the tires can be a contributing factor in tread separation. Therefore, it is up to the car’s owner to see that the air pressure in the tires meets the manufacturer’s standards, which are normally found on the doorjamb of the driver’s door. Underinflation can occur by air escaping through the rubber, or leaks at interfaces of the tire with the wheel and valve stem.

You can avoid some tire failures by simply visually inspecting your tires once a month. Things to look for include cracking or cuts in the sidewalls; uneven treat wear; excessively worn tread; bulges or blisters; and excessive vibration while driving. An inexpensive tire-gauge can be purchased at your local auto store, and used every month to ensure that your pressure is within the manufacturer’s recommendation. Be sure to measure tire pressure when the tires are cold. Tires are considered cold if they have not been driven in the preceding three hours.

Also, underinflation of a tire means that the sidewall flexes more, making it more difficult to control the vehicle. A sidewall that flexes too much can also cause heat to build up excessively, which can shorten a tire’s life and possibly lead to a tread separation or blowout. Another incentive to and advantage of keeping your tire pressure at the manufacturer’s recommendations is that you will get optimal fuel mileage if you fill your tires to the manufacturer’s specifications.

Because a tire is a product, the law of strict products liability applies to cases involving injuries or deaths caused by a tire failure. It is not necessary to prove any specific act of carelessness (“negligence”) on the part of the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer. You need prove only that the tire was defective and that defect caused or contributed to your injuries or your loved one’s death.

Since 2000, there are have been several major recalls of millions of tires. For instance, in the early 2000s, there were massive recalls of more than 15 million tires of several types of Bridgestone and Firestone tires (Bridgestone owns Firestone), especially those put on the Ford Explorer SUV, which resulted in a number of crashes, especially rollovers, killing and seriously injuring hundreds of motorists. For example, Firestone’s Wilderness AT tire lacked proper adhesion between the steel belts and the surrounding rubber. Firestone failed to use gum edge strips, nylon overlays or caps, or other safeguards to reduce the possibility of tread separation.
Causes of traffic injuries and deaths due to faulty tires include:

Tread separationTire failureTire blowoutTire or rim explosion

When a radial tire loses its tread, the body (“carcass”) of the tire usually quickly experiences a blowout. The sudden loss of pressure in the tire makes it difficult for the driver to maintain control over the vehicle, and the vehicle may turn sideways. The sideways motion of the vehicle causes the bead of the tire to separate from the rim, causing the metal rim to dig into the asphalt or concrete surface of the roadway and pitch the car into a roll.
A report from the National Highway Safety Administration revealed that tread separations reduced the ability of drivers to control their vehicles, especially when the tire failure occurs on a rear tire at a high speed. The report also found that there is a much higher likelihood for death, injury, and crashes when the tread separation occurs on a SUV than on a pickup truck.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Autonomic Dysreflexia

admin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:41:22 +0000

Autonomic dysreflexia (AD), also called hyperreflexia, can occur in persons who have suffered a spinal cord injury at or above the fifth thoracic vertebra (T5). AD means an over-activity of the Autonomic Nervous System. AD occurs when there is an irritation, pain, or stimulus to the nervous system below the level of injury. The irritated area sends a signal to the brain, but because of the injury to the spinal cord, the signal is not able to reach the brain. A reflex action takes place, tightening blood vessels, causing the blood pressure to rise to dangerously high levels. If the blood pressure is not controlled, it may cause a stroke, seizure, or even death.

Common signs or symptoms of AD are:

Seeing spots or blurred vision
Pounding headache
Nasal congestion
Flushed face
Red blotching on the neck and chest
Profuse sweating above the level of injury
Goose bumps
Cool, clammy skin
Nausea
Anxiety or a feeling of doom

AD is a serious condition that requires immediate medical attention. Spinal Cord Injury patients, caregivers, and medical professionals must be knowledgeable about AD and its management.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Victory for people of Illinois – Damages Caps Unconstitutional

admin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:17:38 +0000

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today (4-2) that a 2005 law that set non-economic damages caps on plaintiff’s awards in medical malpractice lawsuits is unconstitutional. The reversal of the arbitrary caps is a victory for consumers in Illinois.

Damages caps are arbitrary and inherently unfair. The law basically said, that no matter what your injury, no matter how egregious the medical error, no matter how preventable it was, you are limited as to the award you should get. There was no formula, no science and no logic behind the numbers they chose.

Currently, in California, there is a non-economic cap on damages a plaintiff can receive in a medical malpractice suit. It is capped at $250,000.00 and represents an arbitrary number that was chosen back in the 80’s.

Limitations on the Damages You Can Recover If you get into a motor vehicle accident caused by...
Victory for Consumers in California On Monday, the California Court of Appeals in San Diego...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Have you been involved in an accident?

admin — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:06:17 +0000

If you or a loved one have been involved in an accident call now and speak to a lawyer for free about your case. Don’t let an insurance company or defense attorney take advantage of you. Read our personal injury guide for more information about the things you need to know.

MTA Bus Accident in Los Angeles; Silver Lake Glendale Blvd. Last week, an MTA bus travelling on Glendale Blvd., lost...
210 Freeway Accident with Big Rig Leaves 3 Dead In a tragic incident this morning, an SUV rear-ended a...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Medical Helicopter Crash Investigation: “Was Preventable”

admin — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:47:18 +0000

The Washington Post reported today, that a preliminary investigation into the November 14, 2009 Medical Helicopter Crash earlier this month which left three crew members dead was preventable. The report states that safety equipment that has been recommended by federal experts for years had not been installed in the helicopter which was owned and operated by Mountain LifeFlight in California. Medical helicopter crashes have resulted in more than 30 deaths in the last two years alone. The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board have maintained their positions on safety recommendation and industry standards, however, the requirements for commercial flights and private flights remain different.

For more information on aviation accidents or helicopter accidents, visit the aviation law center.

Medical Helicopter Accident near Reno; 3 killed This morning, a medical helicopter crashed near Reno at the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Toyota Major Recall; Replace more than 4 Million Gas Pedals

admin — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:44:35 +0000

Toyota announced this morning that they will be recalling and replacing more than 4 million gas pedals in the United States. The recall was prompted by several major accidents involving the accelerators getting stuck in the floor mats.

The recall includes the following Toyota Models:

2007-10 Toyota Camry
2005-10 Toyota Avalon
2004-09 Prius
2005-10 Toyota Tacoma
2007-10 Toyota Tundra
2007-10 Lexus ES350
2006-10 Lexus IS250/350.

In August of this year, a fatal accident involving a California Highway Patrol officer and his family prompted an immediate investigation into the possibilities of a defective gas pedal in Toyota cars. This particular crash involved a 2009 Lexus ES350 where the accelerator was stuck. The car couldn’t be stopped and reached speed of 120mph just before striking an embankment, rolling over and bursting into flames.

Defective Products and Product Liability

The basic laws of product liability and consumer safety include the protection of the public from a manufacturer or supplier that produces a product that can injure someone. While the theory’s of product liability and dangerous product protection can involve determining the type of defect and proving it; a strict liability for dangerous product manufacturing and supplying may also apply. Such strict liability may apply to a commercial supplier or manufacturer if the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous. To learn more about product liability, visit our dangerous product information center.

Defective Tires and Tire Failure: Tread Separation Since 2000, there are have been several major recalls of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Victory for Consumers in California

admin — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:09:22 +0000

On Monday, the California Court of Appeals in San Diego ruled unanimously that defendants must take full responsibility for medical costs a plaintiff incurred as a result of a defendants wrongdoing. The case, Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., is a great victory for consumers. Previous holdings stated that if a plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by a defendant, and the plaintiff had their own private health insurance which they paid for, the amount that a defendant is found to be responsible for can be reduced by the amount already paid by the plaintiff’s own health insurance. Thus, leaving the plaintiff with nothing.

The collateral source rule states: “If an injured person receives compensation for injuries from an independent source (such as an insurance company) other than the person who actually injured her, then that money should not be deducted from the damages the person would otherwise collect from the defendant.” A plaintiff is “entitled to recover compensation for the full amount of the harm inflicted upon her, notwithstanding the discount where defendant has nothing to do with procuring the discount.” Arambula v. Wells 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 584 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Dist., Div. 3 1999.

Here is the summary of the holding in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc.:

“In this personal injury action, plaintiff Rebecca Howell’s private health care insurance policy provided indemnity coverage for medical expenses she incurred for treatment of injuries she sustained in a vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of an employee of defendant Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (Hamilton). Howell appeals an order granting Hamilton’s posttrial motion to reduce by $130,286.90 the jury’s special verdict award for her past injury-related medical expenses from $189,978.63, which was the full amount of her medical bills, to $59,691.73, the amount her medical providers Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas (Scripps) and CORE Orthopedic Medical Center (CORE) accepted as payment in full from Howell’s health care insurer, PacifiCare PPO (PacifiCare). Howell contends the order should be reversed because (1) the reduction of the jury’s award for her past medical expenses violates the collateral source rule, which (as we shall discuss more fully, post) generally bars at trial in a personal injury case evidence of compensation the plaintiff has received for her injuries from a source wholly independent of the defendant tortfeasor; and (2) Hamilton’s motion was “procedurally improper and lacked sufficient evidence to support the claimed reduction.”

We hold that in a personal injury case in which the plaintiff has private health care insurance, the negotiated rate differential is a benefit within the meaning of the collateral source rule, and thus the plaintiff may recover the amount of that differential as part of her recovery of economic damages for the past medical expenses she incurred for care and treatment of her injuries. Applying this holding to the instant case, we conclude the court erred by granting Hamilton’s postverdict motion to reduce the jury’s special verdict award for the injury-related medical expenses Howell incurred. Accordingly, we reverse the order.”

In this personal injury action, plaintiff Rebecca Howell’s private health care insurance policy provided indemnity coverage for medical expenses she incurred for treatment of injuries she sustained in a vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of an employee of defendant Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (Hamilton). Howell appeals an order granting Hamilton’s posttrial motion to reduce by $130,286.90 the jury’s special verdict award for her past injury-related medical expenses from $189,978.63, which was the full amount of her medical bills, to $59,691.73, the amount her medical providers Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas (Scripps) and CORE Orthopedic Medical Center (CORE) accepted as payment in full from Howell’s health care insurer, PacifiCare PPO (PacifiCare). Howell contends the order should be reversed because (1) the reduction of the jury’s award for her past medical expenses violates the collateral source rule, which (as we shall discuss more fully, post) generally bars at trial in a personal injury case evidence of compensation the plaintiff has received for her injuries from a source wholly independent of the defendant tortfeasor; and (2) Hamilton’s motion was “procedurally improper and lacked sufficient evidence to support the claimed reduction.”

We hold that in a personal injury case in which the plaintiff has private health care insurance, the negotiated rate differential is a benefit within the meaning of the collateral source rule, and thus the plaintiff may recover the amount of that differential as part of

4

her recovery of economic damages for the past medical expenses she incurred for care and treatment of her injuries. Applying this holding to the instant case, we conclude the court erred by granting Hamilton’s postverdict motion to reduce the jury’s special verdict award for the injury-related medical expenses Howell incurred. Accordingly, we reverse the order.

Collateral Source Rule In personal injury cases, the Collateral Source Rule is intended...
Victory for people of Illinois – Damages Caps Unconstitutional The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today (4-2) that a 2005...
Limitations on the Damages You Can Recover If you get into a motor vehicle accident caused by...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Collateral Source Rule

admin — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:50:21 +0000

In personal injury cases, the Collateral Source Rule is intended to help promote full justice and compensation from a defendants wrongdoing. The rule basically does not allow for an award to be reduced by a judge or jury just because the plaintiff received benefits from other sources, such as health insurance. The rationale behind the collateral source rule is that a defendant should not benefit from the plaintiff’s investment in private health insurance. In some states, the collateral source rule prohibits the admission of evidence that would inform the jury that the plaintiff has been compensated by a different source other than the defendant (i.e. health insurance).

Victory for Consumers in California On Monday, the California Court of Appeals in San Diego...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.