March 1, 2010

Wyeth v. Levine Used to Reverse Pre-Emption of Chicago Pharmaceutical Litigation Case Against Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK)

An Illinois prescription drug case that originally had been dismissed due to issues of federal preemption, has been reinstated by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. This case, Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a Glaxo SmithKline, No. 08-2265, may be the first decision that addresses preemption with respect to prescription drugs.

Rx%20Warning%201.jpgThe original Illinois prescription drug lawsuit was brought by the parents of 23 year-old Tricia Mason after she committed suicide just two days after being started on the prescription drug Paxil. The Illinois prescription drug lawsuit alleged that Paxil increases the risk in suicide in children and young adult, which the manufacturer should have known and therefore had a duty to warn its users.

The lawsuit alleged that GSK violated Illinois law by choosing not to warn Tricia Mason on its label that Paxil increases the risk of suicide for children and young adults. Two years after the decedent's suicide, Paxil added a label warning of an increased risk of suicide among children taking the drug.

Continue reading "Wyeth v. Levine Used to Reverse Pre-Emption of Chicago Pharmaceutical Litigation Case Against Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK)" »

February 5, 2010

Toyota Recalls Reaches New High As Models Expand to Include Prius and Other Hybrids

Toyota recently announced another recall in the long line of Toyota recalls instituted since Toyota's September 2009 recalls. In the past year around 8 million Toyota vehicles have been recalled and now over 400,000 of their hybrid vehicles, including the high selling Prius, have been recalled.

Prius%201.jpgThe unusually large number of recalls due to potential product defects have caught the attention of the top safety officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and other top auto safety officials have made requests for information from Toyota since November, but the manufacturer has yet to comply with the requests.

It has been suggested by a senior American Transportation official that executives at Toyota were "dragging things out" and that the U.S. officials have had it with the automaker's lack of corporation regarding its auto product defects. The official goes on to state that they "were getting excuses [from Toyota] that didn’t make sense anymore.”

Continue reading "Toyota Recalls Reaches New High As Models Expand to Include Prius and Other Hybrids" »

January 4, 2010

Mandatory Arbitration Clause Defeated in Carideo v. Dell, Inc.

After a long and complicated battle, a major victory for class action and product defect lawsuits was noted in the case of Carideo v. Dell, Inc. In light of new events, the United States District Court Judge found that the computer company’s mandatory arbitration clause and class action ban was “unenforceable”.

Laptop%201.jpgCiting product liability claims, Carideo alleged that Dell manufactured and marketed laptops priced between $1,300 and $1,700 that were defectively designed and manufactured. Upon the filing of Carideo, Dell moved to compel arbitration based on its mandatory arbitration clause. Under this clause, the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) was assigned as the arbitrator and class actions were banned. Furthermore, Dell’s forum consumer contract also has a Texas choice of law provision. In June 2007, at Dell’s urging, Texas law was applied to Carideo, which resulted in arbitration being ordered by the court.

However, the following year another case involving similar facts, McKee v. AT&T, the Washington Supreme Court struck down AT&T’s class action ban and held that the phone company’s new choice of law provision was unenforceable. Shortly after the McKee decision, Minnesota's Attorney General sued NAF, which prompted the company to announce it would no longer be arbitrating consumer disputes. And because NAF was the mandatory arbitrator assigned to all of Dell's cases, Carideo's decision was reevaluated by the original judge.

Continue reading "Mandatory Arbitration Clause Defeated in Carideo v. Dell, Inc." »

November 9, 2009

Could Product Defect Be at Fault? Toyota and Lexus Cars Reported to Have Numerous Sudden Acceleration Accidents

According to the Chicago Tribune, since 2001 over 1,000 Toyota and Lexus owners have reported that their cars having suddenly accelerated on their own. Sometimes these runaway cars were found after crashing into trees, parked cars, brick walls, and other obstacles. In fact, some of these crashes have resulted in death with as many as 19 deaths directly related to sudden accelerations reported over the last ten years.

toyota_logo%201.jpgTo date there have been no less than eight investigations into the sudden accelerations in Toyota and Lexus cars by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over the last seven years. NHTSA investigated the cases from all angles, including whether there was any product defect responsible for the occurrences.

Toyota recalled around 85,000 vehicles in response to two of those inquiries, but the federal agency closed six other cases without finding a defect. Some of those cases closed by federal officials were those in which drivers said they were unable to stop runaway cars even trying to stop by using their brakes. In spite of the NHTSA closing some of these cases, fatal crashes involving Toyota cars have continued to rise.

Continue reading "Could Product Defect Be at Fault? Toyota and Lexus Cars Reported to Have Numerous Sudden Acceleration Accidents" »

September 30, 2009

Toyota Announces Largest Ever Recall - 3.8 Million Vehicles Recalled for Defective Floor Mats

Yesterday Toyota announced its largest recall ever when it announced its plan to recall 3.8 million vehicles due to a product defect. According to the auto manufacturer, the vehicles in question are equipped with a floor mat that causes the accelerator pedal to become stuck.

Toyota%201.jpgAs a temporary solution, the federal government and Toyota are encouraging vehicle owners to simply remove the driver's side floor mat. Toyota advised that until the manufacturer comes up with a solution regarding the defective product, owners should simply remove the mats rather than bringing the vehicle to the dealership.

An alert has been issued by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the Toyota floor mats warning drivers that stuck accelerator pedals could lead to high speeds and deadly crashes. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, reinforced this message in a recent statement, in which he "strongly urge[d] owners of these vehicles to remove mats or other obstacles that could lead to unintended accelerations".

Continue reading "Toyota Announces Largest Ever Recall - 3.8 Million Vehicles Recalled for Defective Floor Mats" »

August 5, 2009

FDA Warns Consumers on Body-Building Products Sold As Nutritional Supplements

Increased reports of medical problems associated with certain nutritional supplements has prompted The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a public health advisory on body building supplements. These supplements may contain steroids or steroid-like substances and may be associated with kidney failure and liver failure in men.

Pills%20C%201.bmpWhile the FDA has not specified exactly how many products fall into this category, it advised that consumers not to purchase and use products labeled with words such as “anabolic” or “tren” or phrases like “blocks estrogen” and “minimizes gyno”. In addition, the FDA cautions consumers to be wary of body-building products claiming to enhance or diminish the effects of hormones like testosterone, estrogen or progestin.

Of those products that the FDA did specifically name, those included MASS Xtreme, TREN-Xtreme, ESTRO Xtreme, HMG Xtreme, AH-89-Xtreme, MMA-3 Xtreme, TT-40-Xtreme, and VNS-9 Xtreme, all of which contained hidden and potentially dangerous steroids. The FDA has taken action in the form of sending a warning letter to these drugs' manufacturer, Americell-Labs, stating that the company should produce products that are in compliance with federal regulations.

Continue reading "FDA Warns Consumers on Body-Building Products Sold As Nutritional Supplements" »

July 20, 2009

Automotive Product Liability Claims Against General Motors Will Continue To Stand Even After Bankruptcy

The U.S. government has struck a deal with General Motors (GM) that requires the car manufacturer to assume responsibility for any automobile product liability lawsuits filed after GM emerges from bankruptcy as a new, government-owned company. This requirement even applies to claims regarding vehicles manufactured by the old GM.

GM%20Logo%201.jpgThis agreement is much better for the general public than GM's original plan, which would have barred any new product liability lawsuits being filed against the new company. However, lawmakers had a problem with leaving the American public without any legal recourse for personal injuries resulting from car and truck product defects. The deal that resulted in the present requirement resolved this problem that could have stalled GM’s plan for a quick restructuring program.

And while future vehicle product liability claims are protected, it appears that previously filed product liability claims will likely remained tied to the old GM and therefore be tied to its bankruptcy proceedings. Typically, after a company files for bankruptcy the courts and bankruptcy protection allow that company to leave any legal claims behind so that they can emerge from bankruptcy with a clean slate.

Continue reading "Automotive Product Liability Claims Against General Motors Will Continue To Stand Even After Bankruptcy " »

May 29, 2009

Illinois Hydroxycut Users Showing Symptoms Described by FDA

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised consumers that products sold under the Hydroxycut branded name could cause liver and heart problems. The FDA Hydroxycut advisory stated that "although liver damage appears to be relatively rare, FDA believes consumers should not be exposed to unnecessary risks.” The results were that its products were recalled.

Pills%20B%202.jpgChicago and Illinois residents have reported symptoms of adverse affects from taking Hydroxycut, which range from stomach and abdominal pain, excessive fatigue, recurring headaches, excessive weakness, vomiting, loss of appetite, to kidney failure and liver damage severe enough to require a liver transplant.

Hydroxycut products are dietary supplements that were marketed for weight loss as fat burners, energy-enhancers, low carbohydrate diet aides, and for water loss. The brand names are marketed by Iovate Health Sciences, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., Muscle Tech, among other brand names.

The FDA has asked that healthcare professionals and consumers report any serious adverse or side effects from the taking of these products.

Continue reading "Illinois Hydroxycut Users Showing Symptoms Described by FDA" »

April 14, 2009

Extraction Of Defective Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis Cables Causes Deaths

Medtronic, the maker of Sprint Fidelis, a heart defibrillator cable, has taken its product off the market. But the problem with it still being used by some 150,000 people around Illinois and the country has resulted in several deaths in removing the defective cable.

Heart%202.jpgMedtronic estimates that the cable has failed in a little more than 5% of patients after 45 months of being implanted. But as a preventive measure, some patients with working cables are having them removed.

Already 4 patients have died during extractions. It is feared that the toll could quickly rise if such procedures are not performed by skilled doctors at medical centers that have performed many of these operations.

“I think we are seeing the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Charles J. Love, a cardiologist at who specializes in cable extractions. For many patients around Illinois, the big issue is who is skilled enough to remove these defective heart implants. It is thought that some surgeons removing the cables do not have the required skill level.

Continue reading "Extraction Of Defective Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis Cables Causes Deaths" »

March 17, 2009

Illinois Product Liability Case Involving Product Defect Hastened by Illinois Supreme Court Decision

In a recent Chicago product defect case, the pace of settlement negotiations were perhaps hastened because in November 2008 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that defendants in negligence suits who settle prior to trial, should not be named on jury verdict forms for the purpose of apportioning liability (Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., et al., WL 5046833).

Money%20Dollars%202.jpgThe recent Illinois product liability case involved involving a punch press operator and settled for over $5 million. Both of the worker's arms were amputated after a punch press malfunctioned and part of the machine crushed both arms.

Seven years ago a U.S. District Court judge approved a $1.1 million settlement in this same Illinois product defect case, which released one of the manufacturers of the machine that caused the injury. However, the case wasn't over as there two remaining manufacturer parties still involved in the Illinois product liability case.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Liability Case Involving Product Defect Hastened by Illinois Supreme Court Decision" »

March 4, 2009

Car, SUV And Truck Rollover Accidents No Longer Being Ignored By Manufacturers

Car and truck manufacturers have largely ignored the product defects causing insufficient occupant protection and rollover crashes until recently, relying instead on inadequate minimum government standards. However, this is changing in light of increased pressure from a consumer-friendly government coupled with years of having to compensate victims of rollover deaths and personal injuries. These manufacturers are now taking steps to protect the public.

Car%20Roof%201.jpgIn 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed an upgrade to the 1973 version of the federal roof crush standard for automobile manufacturers. At that time, the standard was so weak that most occupants in a rollover would be severely injured or killed. That standard merely requires a vehicle roof resist a static force of 1.5 times the empty weight of the vehicle or 5,000 lbs., whichever is less. This kind of standard does not reflect the dynamic forces that a vehicle typically experiences in an actual rollover. In virtually every rollover, the roof makes contact with the ground on one side or then the other.

Continue reading "Car, SUV And Truck Rollover Accidents No Longer Being Ignored By Manufacturers" »

December 5, 2008

Product Liability Case Reversed When Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Risk-Utility Design Test

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed a $27 million jury verdict award and ordered a new trial after applying the risk-utility test of Illinois product design liability in favor of the defendant. This is a new application of the risk-utility test, which typically falls in favor of the plaintiff.

Driver%20Seat1.jpgIllinois' strict design defect theory applies one of two tests to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. The first test is the “consumer expectation” test, under which the plaintiff must show that the product is more unreasonably dangerous than a typical consumer would realize when purchasing it.

The other test is the “risk-utility”, or “risk-benefit” test. Under the risk-utility test the consumer must prove that the danger associated with a product outweighs the product's benefits. Under the risk-utility design the product manufacturer may also prove that the product's benefits outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the product's design.

In Mikolajczyk v Ford Motor Co, 2008 W.L. 4603565 (Ill.Supp.Ct. 2008) , the Supreme Court applied the risk-utility test to determine whether the product was defective under Illinois law. In Mikolajczyk, the plaintiff died of injuries sustained when another vehicle crashed into the rear end of his Ford Escort. His widow brought a claim regarding the defective design of the driver's seat against the Ford Motor Company and Mazda Motor Corporation.

Continue reading "Product Liability Case Reversed When Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Risk-Utility Design Test" »

November 3, 2008

Illinois Attacks Distributor of Defective Baby Cribs

Last week Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit against SFCA, Inc., a distributor of baby cribs, bassinets and playpens, claiming that SFCA continues to sell and distribute the subject bassinet, even after voluntarily recalling 1,000,000 of the products in 2007.

Bassinet%201.jpgThe bassinet allegedly has design flaws. Federal regulators warned consumers that the bassinet caused the death of two infants. The bassinets are equipped with sides that drop down for easy access to the baby. Unfortunately the design creates a gap that the baby can slide through. The two infants that died did slide through and hung to death.

SFCA is not taking responsibility regarding the product liability claim for the defective bassinet, which is manufactured and marketed through Simplicity, Inc., a subsidiary company of SFCA, Inc. SFCA maintains that it wasn’t responsible for the items produced by Simplicity because it only just bought the Simplicity brand in August 2008. Yet closer examination reveals that SFCA bought the Simplicity brand bassinets, but then shipped them from its own facility using the same design of the products that killed the 2 infants.

Continue reading "Illinois Attacks Distributor of Defective Baby Cribs" »

October 27, 2008

Are All FDA Approved Devices Safe?

The U.S. Food and Drug Association is responsible for ensuring that new medical devices are safe enough to be put on the market. As a federal agency, the FDA controls regulation nationwide and within Illinois and Chicago. But what most consumers don't know is that the process for approving these medical devices doesn't always ensure that they are effective alternatives to already established medical treatments.

Approved%20Stamp.jpgThe majority of newly approved medical devices undergo a 501(k) review. Under this review process the manufacturer needs to prove that their device is substantially similar to another device that has already been approved for the market. Once they have done that, the manufacturer just needs to show that the device does what it claims. Yet in the field of medicine, just performing a function is different than guaranteeing the supposed outcome.

For example, let's suppose that Elaine, an Illinois woman, was trying to decide between which type of radiation she should get to treat her breast cancer. Her options range from conventional radiation, which would irradiate her whole breast five times per week for a total of five weeks, to a newly-FDA approved radiation therapy method called MammoSite brachytherapy. This new method only requires radiation for five days and uses radioactive 'seeds' to treat the cancer.

All things being equal, the MammoSite option is much more appealing because it gets the job done in a fraction of the time and is Elaine's first choice. Her doctor recommends it and she decides to go with the newer treatment option. However, what Elaine doesn't know is that even though MammoSite is FDA-approved, the long-term effectiveness of the treatment is not yet proven. While early studies have come back with promising results, it will be years before there is enough data to determine whether it is as effective as conventional radiation. Yet many of the women undergoing this form of treatment are unaware that it is still in an experimental state and are trusting the FDA-approval and their doctors' recommendation.

Continue reading "Are All FDA Approved Devices Safe?" »

September 16, 2008

Goodyear Tire Defect in Motorcycle Accident Case Decision Stands: Illinois Court Allows Expert Opinions Without Pinpointing Precise Cause of Crash

An Illinois federal judge upheld a jury verdict for a woman permanently disabled in a motorcycle crash even though her expert witness did not pinpoint the exact cause of the crash. McCloud v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. America, Ltd. WL 2323792 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2008).

Motorcycle%20Wheel%201.jpgTrish McCloud was severely injured in 2002 when the rear tire blew out on her Honda Gold Wing motorcycle. Her expert witness narrowed down the tire defect to three possible manufacturing errors by defendant, Goodyear. Based on his testimony the jury awarded her damages under her product liability claim.

Goodyear asked for a new trial, in part because it felt that McCloud's expert had not adequately proved that its product was defective. McCloud's expert had testified that the blowout was the result of a nylon cord getting embedded in the tire's innermost layer rather than the layers of rubber, which was where it belonged. This then caused a bubble to form in the sidewall layer of the tire, which eventually burst. Her expert posed three different ways this product defect could have occurred during the manufacturing process, but did not pinpoint which one specifically was the cause.

In response, Goodyear reasoned that the blowout was the result of the tire being overloaded and under-inflated. It argued that the motorcycle itself was overweight, which would have contributed to this blowout, and further cited inadequate checking of the tire pressure by the owner. Furthermore, the fact that none of its other customers had reported a similar problem was a factor to be considered.

Continue reading "Goodyear Tire Defect in Motorcycle Accident Case Decision Stands: Illinois Court Allows Expert Opinions Without Pinpointing Precise Cause of Crash" »

August 13, 2008

Injured at Work? Illinois Workers Could Have a Product Liability Case

Consider the following scenario. You work at a Chicago manufacturing factory. One day the machine you operate becomes jammed. In order to try to remove the jammed material you remove the machine's guard and place your hand inside. But as you do this the machine starts up and crushes your hand. You are now permanently disabled and unable to do your job. What are your legal options?
Machine%20Warning1.jpg Because of Illinois worker's compensation law you are limited to recover against your employer in the Illinois Industrial Commission and cannot bring a separate civil lawsuit directly against your employer. But if your injury at work involved a machine or product then you may be able to recover damages from the manufacturer in a product liability claim brought as a separate civil suit.

The most common product liability claim from work-related injuries is due to the product's lack of safety features, such as a guard or an automatic shut-off that is activated when the guard was removed, or a release lever that kills the power instantly. When a product fails to include a reasonable safety feature that makes it unduly dangerous to its user then the manufacturer can be held liable for any injuries sustained while operating the machine.

A product could also be faulty due to a product design or manufacturing defect. A design defect is when the product's design contains a hazard that could have been made safe by altering the design itself. For example, ladder that doesn't contain a latch to keep its position locked in place is a design defect. Whereas a manufacturing defect occurs when there are no problems with the design itself, but the defect is caused by faulty manufacturing. If there were poor quality controls in place, or improper materials were used it could result in manufacturing flaws.

Additionally, if there was a lack of warning on your product then it could also be considered defective. This can apply both when there is no warning whatsoever and also when the warning is in a poor location that renders it likely that the user wouldn't see it.

Lastly, the product you are using can be defective if it malfunctions, meaning that it did not work as it was designed. For example, a product arrives and contains broken glass on which you then cut yourself. The fact that the product is broken on arrival is not a design defect. But because the machine was delivered in a dangerous condition, the injury suffered could be proved to be caused by the unreasonably dangerous arrival condition of the machine.

There are a lot of ways in which a product can be defective and result in a product liability lawsuit. To determine whether or not you have a case requires an inspection of the existing product by an expert who can then qualify the defect. Ideally this inspection can occur immediately after the injury. It's always best to consult with a lawyer as soon as possible under these circumstances. Should the machine be altered, lost or damaged after the injury, it makes proof of the condition at the time of the injury much harder if not impossible.

Continue reading "Injured at Work? Illinois Workers Could Have a Product Liability Case" »

July 29, 2008

Collapsed Seat In Dodge Caravan Found Unsafe and Cause for Infant's Death

The parents of 8-month-old Joshua Flax filed suit against DaimlerChrysler after their son was killed in a car accident involving their 1998 Dodge Caravan. The wrongful death case centered on the allegedly defective design of the minivan's front seat backs. Jeremy Flax, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., et al.

Minivan%20Seats.jpgJoshua Flax was in the back seat of the minivan when it was rear-ended. The impact caused the front seat to collapse and its passenger to strike Joshua in the head, fracturing his skull. No other passengers were seriously injured and all parties agreed that Joshua was only fatally injured because of the collapsed seat.

In late 2004, a jury found DaimlerChrysler's seats to be defective and unreasonably dangerous, awarding a total of $105,500,000 to Joshua's parents. This amount was later reduced, but the verdict was upheld all the way through the Supreme Court.

Evidence showed that the seat in question had been failing crash tests for over 20 years. Since the '80's Chrysler had been getting complaints that the seats were collapsing and injuring children. In fact, a former employee testified that he had investigated the seats in the '90's because of all the complaints. He was fired after expressing that he wanted to bring the issue to federal regulators.

In its opinion the Supreme Court stated that the evidence showed that not only had Chrysler ignored customer's warnings and failed to redesign their minivan, but they also hid the evidence. In addition, they marketed their minivan as a vehicle that put safety first.

The minivan has been a symbol of modern American families. When Joshua Flax's family strapped his car seat in they felt confident in the safety of their minivan. But they found out all too soon the error in their perception was from the deception by Chrysler.

Continue reading "Collapsed Seat In Dodge Caravan Found Unsafe and Cause for Infant's Death" »

July 16, 2008

Product Liability Litigation Avoided by Cook County Car Dealership: Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies Product Defect Statute

1flag%20car%202.jpgDefendant Mancari's Chrysler Plymouth dealership in Cook County lucked out with an ideological “get out of trial free” card in a product liability case involving a car sold at his dealership. Murphy v. Mancari's Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. 2008 WL 927727.

The Illinois Appellate Court's clarification of section 2-261 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure makes it easier for non-manufacturers to be dismissed from strict product liability cases in Illinois. The relevant section states that

"A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer . . . where the plaintiff can show . . . That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage". 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c)(2).

So if plaintiff could prove that the defendant knew about the product defect then the defendant could not be dismissed from case. However, Murphy takes this interpretation a step further to determine whether it is enough that defendant just knows about the alleged defect or whether they need to know that the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous, too?

In Murphy, Plaintiff Joseph Murphy claimed that he was paralyzed in a rollover accident because his Sebring lacked a roll bar safety device. He alleged that Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth sold him a Sebring that was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a roll bar. Mancari confirmed that they knew that the vehicle did not have a roll bar, but still claimed that this did not make them directly responsible.

Continue reading "Product Liability Litigation Avoided by Cook County Car Dealership: Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies Product Defect Statute" »

July 7, 2008

NHTSA's Roof Crush Standard: Opponents Decry as Ineffective and a Smokescreen for Stripping Consumer's Legal Rights

NASCAR driver Michael McDowell walked away from a violent rollover crash during a race at the Texas Motor Speedway earlier this year. After skidding into a wall and flipping across the track several times he climbed out of his crashed vehicle unhurt. This complete lack of injury is unimaginable in your typical car, but NASCAR vehicles come equipped with roll bars to prevent roof crush in rollover crashes.

Unfortunately your typical street car doesn't come equipped with as stringent safety standards as those enforced by NASCAR. Currently the roof crush standard in the United States requires that the roof must be able to withstand pressure of at least 1.5 times the vehicle's weight. This is the same standard which was established in 1973 and has remained unchanged since its inception. In 2005 Congress proposed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) upgrade its standards in an effort to reduce injuries and fatalities from rollover crashes.

XC90-rollover-test-resized_1.jpgRecently NHTSA came to Congress with a proposal for increasing the weight ratio to 2.5. The minimal increase has drawn a lot of controversy with its opponents calling the increase ineffective. In 2007, over 10,000 people died in rollover crashes. In Illinois there were over 5,000 rollover accidents in just 2006. Yet the NHTSA estimates that its proposed increase would only result in 13 to 44 fewer rollover fatalities a year. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) stated, "If we have a little increase in roof strength that doesn't result in a major decrease in injuries and fatalities, we've done nothing."

And while the ratio change is minimal and drawn criticism as being ineffective there is another controversy surrounding the bill. Possibly worse yet the NHTSA proposal has a throw in; the agency inserted language which would preempt accident victims from suing any manufacturer who met the minimum standard.

Continue reading "NHTSA's Roof Crush Standard: Opponents Decry as Ineffective and a Smokescreen for Stripping Consumer's Legal Rights" »