Articles Posted in Product Defect

by

According to a recent ABC News report, court documents from a class-action lawsuit against that has been filed against Toyota claim that the company is in possession of documents that show that the automaker documented confirmed cases of sudden acceleration without driver error as many as 7 years ago. Other alleged company documents show that Toyota has been able to recreate instances of sudden acceleration, again without driver error, within the last year.

The documents are referred to in a revised complaint that has been filed against Toyota in U.S. District Court for Southern California. In the suit, forty Toyota owners claim that sudden acceleration problems has caused them financial harm by reducing the resale value of their cars. The suit claims that, “Toyota failed to disclose that its own technicians often replicated sudden acceleration events without driver error.”

In a 2003 document quoted in the complaint, a technician reported a sudden acceleration incident where he found a “mis-synchronism between engine speed and throttle position movement.” The technician requested immediate action to correct the dangerous problem. Another document, from 2005, involved a Toyota dealership report that states that a dealer verified two separate acceleration incidents with a Toyota Sequoia. A 2003 report described what was called a “surge event,” despite no trouble code on a scan tool. According to consumer safety experts, many of the sudden acceleration problems could be resulting from a defect in Toyota’s electronic throttle control systems. The company has repeatedly denied that the vehicles have electronic problems.

Continue reading

by

When a lawsuit is brought the positions of the parties are frequently unequal. This is often the case for products liability suits, which involve an injured consumer or user of a product seeking to recover damages from the maker or seller of the product. Being a large and sometimes repeat player in the legal system can give businesses an advantage over an individual that is using the court system for the first time. Depending on the size, structure, nature of the business, as well as other factors, businesses may have an in-house legal department or regular representation from an outside firm. This kind of legal experience and expertise can sometimes result in the business defendant being able to delay, increase the cost of, or otherwise inhibit the discovery process. A potential plaintiff needs a competent, experienced, and dedicated lawyer to ensure that all the discovery evidence he or she is entitled to is provided by the defendant.

An example of this type of battle is the recent case called Soileau v. Smith’s True Value and Rental, which named Deere & Company and John Deere Limited as defendants. Ms. Soileau was injured in an accident on November 1, 2007 when a John Deere Model 460 front end loader became detached from a John Deere Model 4510 tractor and struck her right leg. Her initial lawsuit was brought on April 21, 2008.

Ms. Soileau filed interrogatories and requests for production of documents at the time of initially filing her lawsuit. However, each round of requests seemed to lead to refusals, delay, and incomplete information. Ms. Soileau even received incomplete information from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This battle eventually led Ms. Soileau to turn to the court to force cooperation from the defendants. In addition to a motion to compel the defendants to answer her interrogatories, she sought to have them sanctioned, barred from producing certain evidence at trial, and forced to pay penalties and attorney fees for the trouble caused by their lack of cooperation.

Continue reading

by

A fire broke out in 2008 within the Denham Springs, Louisiana, home of Thomas and Janice Campbell that laid devastation to the house and left the couple looking for answers. The fire investigator determined the fire’s cause was a defective range in the Campbell’s kitchen. The investigator determined the burners were off and the fire broke out when the control panel experienced a short. The Campbell’s had an expert assess the damage as well and received the same conclusion. Because of this assessment, the Campbell’s brought a lawsuit against manufacturer of the range, General Electric, alleging product defect had led to the destruction of their home. GE countered in court, moving for summary judgment against the use of the Campbell’s expert witness as well as moving for summary judgment against the use of a construction/composition claim.

If you have been a victim of an injury from a defective product, you should know that there are three different ways that you can prove the product is defective. These ways of proving fault attempt to encompass the process that a product undergoes and includes a variety of manners in which faulty conduct on the part of the delivery chain led to the disaster. By expanding the manner in which fault may be determined, the law not only gives more option to those injured by a product but also keeps a victim from suing anyone who came into contact with the good in hopes of compensation.

First, a product may have a manufacturing defect. A manufacturing defect occurs when a product becomes unreasonably dangerous by an error in the manufacturing process or the materials used in its creation, assembly, or construction. Therefore, if your electric range caused a fire because the materials used to create the product were below standard, this would be a “manufacturing defect.” In Louisiana, these defects are called “construction or composition” defects.

Continue reading

by

Because of the nature of asbestos related diseases and the way victims contract them, injury cases involving asbestos can be complicated. Lengthy exposure to asbestos in

Louisiana and the long latency, or development, of asbestos caused diseases takes these cases outside the realm of typical personal injury cases. While this framework is not perfect, it still provides asbestos victims an avenue to seek compensation for their injuries.

In the case of Cole v. Celotex, 599 So.2d 1058 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the difficulty of applying pure tort or personal injury principles to asbestos cases and handed down several important rules for asbestos injury cases coming after it. By reviewing the Court’s analysis of when, legally speaking, an asbestos injury actually occurs, it is our hope that you can better understand the issues involved and how you might be able to receive compensation for any damages you face because of exposure. Whats more, determining the legal timeframe is critical, as timing can affect both a plaintiffs right to file suit as well as the law that applies to the case.

Continue reading

by

For those Louisiana residents, whether they live in Baton Rouge, Lafayette, New Orleans, Mandeville, Lake Charles, Shreveport or Alexandria, that have questions dealing with Chinese Drywall, feel free to look at our Chinese drywall information section. This blog section focuses on the timeline of this toxic wallboard in America. Whether featuring Chinese drywall symptoms or Chinese drywall lawsuits, our posts hopefully will help people both in Louisiana and a variety of Gulf Coast states like Texas, Mississippi and Florida better understand this complex issue.

If you have any questions on the complex legal issues that exist with this matter, including “How do I know if I have Chinese drywall?” or “How to Identify Chinese drywall in your home?” feel free to contact our firm. It is important to take action as soon as possible in order to secure your legal rights. Click here to contact us today.

by

Residents of Louisiana, Florida, Virginia and at least twenty-nine other states have reported problems associated with the use of imported Chinese drywall. Reported problems include the emission of foul odors and physical damage to property. In addition, some homeowners have complained of health problems such as headaches, coughing and general respiratory problems.

Although U.S. government investigations into the Chinese drywall issue are ongoing, a recent U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (‘the Commission’) study identified a link between Chinese drywall and the corrosion of metal components in homes. As part of its ongoing investigation, the Commission has issued a precautionary fire alert.

Many affected homeowners have taken a proactive approach. In one U.S. District Court case in New Orleans, plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested that the court require Chinese drywall manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. (‘Knauf’) to pay to restore an affected house to the condition that it was in before corrosive gases allegedly damaged property. Although Knauf’s attorney agreed that Knauf should remove the drywall from the affected home, the company’s attorney argued that Knauf should not be held responsible for the restoration of the home, questioning the claim that Chinese drywall corroded fixtures. According to one source, at least 2,100 people in the U.S. have sued in federal courts, claiming damage from Chinese-made drywall.

Continue reading

by

A malfunctioning traffic signal located in Rosepine, Louisiana, caused much confusion for two drivers one October morning in 1978. Going about their day, both drivers were given the green signal from their respective sides of the signal. As both drivers moved forward expecting the other to stop they collided. One driver filed suit, and the case that arose from the collision provided an opportunity for Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeal to clarify who is at fault in that type of situation. Through this ruling the court developed precedent for the responsibility in the event of malfunction. At fault was Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development (Department).

The Court first verified that the traffic signal was malfunctioning at the time of the accident. Both drivers and many uninterested witnesses testified as to the condition of the light. It was described as appearing to have been struck, being twisted, and turning from green to yellow and back on all sides.

The Court then looked to Article 2317 of Louisiana’s Civil Code to see who would be held liable for the plaintiff’s damages. The Article provides in part:

Continue reading

by

How does the law treat someone bringing a lawsuit who may be somewhat at fault for the incident? Let’s assume an injured Louisiana resident wants to sue another driver for crashing into her vehicle. In his defense, the defendant driver argues that the plaintiff failed to properly yield, and is therefore at least partly to blame for the accident.

Depending on whether the jurisdiction follows the contributory, purely contributory, comparative, or purely comparative negligence regime, the defendant may be fully liable, partly liable, or not liable at all for the damages sustained by the plaintiff. These legal tests of contributory and comparative negligence are critical for injured plaintiffs to understand, as they may decide just how much or how little one can recover from a defendant if the accident was not fully the fault of just one party. Louisiana follows a pure comparative model. Whereas other negligence regimes might bar a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are more than 50% at fault for the injuries, the Louisiana model allows a jury to award damages as long as the defendant is simply a little bit at fault.

The defense of comparative negligence is critical in products liability litigation. Recent headlines regarding the Toyota recalls reveal that the car manufacturer may already be laying the groundwork for this type of defense in anticipation of future litigation.

Continue reading

by

86 year old Margie Davis of Columbia was shopping in the West Monroe Wal-Mart store during Thanksgiving week when she was tragically killed. A shelf full of holiday towels fell on Ms. Davis and she died a day later from her injuries. In responding to the Davis family’s lawsuit against Wal-Mart, the retail giant has indicated in court documents that they are not responsible.

As noted in an article on myarklamiss.com,

Wal-Mart attorney Michael Adams declines comment but in a response to the lawsuit he denies everything except that Davis entered the West Monroe store. One part even blames Davis saying quote’… allegations which defendants deny were proximately caused by negligence and fault of plaintiff or plaintiff’s mother, Margie Davis,’ said Adams’ (Wal-Mart) plea filed in federal court.

Continue reading

by

As reported in the St. Charles Herald Guide in August 2009, two separate plane crashes occurred less than 24 hours apart. Both happened on private air strips, involved experienced pilots, and occurred while the planes were still on the ground.

The first crash was on August 23rd. James F. Miller was undergoing pilot re-certification at St. Charles Parish airport in Ama. Miller and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Wendell Lee Collins were on board when the plane veered left in takeoff, struck a tree, and was engulfed in flames. Both men were killed.

The other accident was the following afternoon in Taft when the plane of Lucien Taft Triche flipped over as he taxied down a private runway. Triche had been working on his plane and was taking it out for a test run. When the plane flipped Triche rolled out and was trapped under the wing. He was taken to the hospital with broken bones.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design