Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

As an experienced automobile defect and car accident attorney for over three decades, I recognize one thing, cars should be designed safely for everyone whether they are adults or children. Unfortunately, when it comes to safety many of the large automobile manufacturers have sacrificed the interests of both children and those individuals that are above or below average sized individuals.

Each year, thousands of children are seriously injured and killed due to poor seat belt fit or improper restraint systems in the vehicle.

Many times child and infant car seats are improperly designed or have manufacturing defects presenting hidden dangers. Children between the ages of 4 and 8 under 80 lbs. are typically less than 48 inches tall and are exposed to a higher risk of catastrophic injury or wrongful death than an adult because adult safety seat belts are designed to protect adults and not children. When a seat belt fails to protect or fit an individual correctly, there is an excellent chance that in a catastrophic accident restrained individuals will sustain a submersion injury, rollover injury, or positioning injury leading to catastrophic injuries such as quadriplegia, paraplegia, or death.

The Pennsylvania automobile defect and product liability lawyers of Reiff and Bily understand that prevention of injuries must always be priority number one rather than profits for automobile manufacturers. Seat belt restraint systems are design issues and defectively designed or manufactured seat belts and seat belt buckles that lead to potential failures, unlatch, false latch, inadvertent latch, and retractor failures create a catastrophically dangerous situation that many people do not learn of until it is just too late.

The National Highway Safety Administration is charged with writing and enforcing safety, theft resistance, and fuel economy guidelines for motor vehicles. However, as an experienced Pennsylvania automobile product liability attorney who has handled a substantial number of catastrophic car accident cases, I am well aware that these are only minimal standards and guidelines.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (FMVSS), are regulations written in terms of the minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, motor vehicle items, and motor vehicle equipment. Many of the big auto makers take pride in announcing that their vehicles meet these “minimal” standards, however, a safely designed car should exceed these standards, especially if there is a safer design alternative.

In 1980, NHTSA recognized the need for safer interiors of vehicles and identified improvements to padding and cushioning in the event of an accident. In 1989, the application of one inch of padding was required to interior surfaces which was indicated to reduce head trauma by half as much. The Department of Transportation estimated the cost of padding all roof, rails, and areas likely to have an impact was approximately $33 per car.

Safety is not one thing, it’s everything. Understanding that NHTSA or FMVSS government standards are only minimal guidelines and applying conventional wisdom that cars and motor vehicles should be safe makes it intolerable and unacceptable when automobile manufacturers cut corners and emphasize safety over profits. While automobile manufacturers always speak about compliance with federal standards, standard testing typically does not call for all types of situations or applications.

Keeping this in mind, if you or a loved one has been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident, you may want to contact an experienced car accident and automotive product liability attorney to fully evaluate your claim and search the road less traveled for answers and proper compensation. The experienced Pennsylvania car accident and automotive product liability lawyers of Reiff and Bily always offer a free, no obligation consultation. Contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

It has often been stated by legislators and lawmakers that greedy trial lawyers and their clients take advantage of the legal system by seeking large verdicts after they are injured by the negligence of another or by a defectively designed or defectively manufactured product.

For years, as an experienced catastrophic injury attorney, I would have friends talk to me about the famous “McDonald’s coffee case” when in fact they had no idea what that case was really about. In fact, the hot coffee propaganda campaign in the newspapers was funded by major corporations who have spent millions of dollars to distort the case promoting tort reform.

I urge all of my readers to view “Hot Coffee” which clearly reveals how large businesses and corporations aided by the media manipulated the public with lies to protect corporate interests. The film follows the lives of four individuals whose lives were devastated by the attacks on our courts, and challenges assumptions many Americans hold about “jackpot justice”.

For over three decades, I have recognized that the collective 500 years of wisdom of individuals comprising a jury have more common sense than anyone else in the courtroom. It is conventional wisdom that products, cars, amusement rides, and premises should be safe from defects. Occupy Wall Street began a worldwide movement protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, as well as corruption and the undue influence that corporations have. The 7th Amendment of the United States Constitution grants us all the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.

Many of the product liability cases that our office regularly investigates and litigates involves someone’s deepest and darkest fears coming true. Imagine receiving a phone call in the middle of the night notifying you that your child or another loved one has been wrongfully killed as a result of being involved in a car accident caused by a defective product design or mechanism that the manufacturers have known for years created an unsafe condition. Everyone has the right to expect that when they purchase an automobile, they are buying a safe car and that safety should never be an option. Yet, in many of our automobile product liability cases, we have been able to show that automobile manufacturers concealed known defects putting the profitability and greed of corporate interests above consumer safety. Simply put, cutting corners on product design or manufacture and not putting safety first is never acceptable. The prevention of an injury must always be priority number one. Cars should be designed to be safe for everyone, adults and children. Concealing safety issues with bold faced lies in the name of business and profits is simply intolerable.

The experienced Philadelphia product liability lawyers of Reiff and Bily understand that one must never be afraid to stand up to big business and corporations. If you or a loved one has been injured by the defective design or manufacture of a product, contact one of our experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyers for a free, no obligation consultation toll free at 1-800-421-95959 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

How many times have you been driving down the highway and seen treads, shredded tires, or torn pieces of tires sitting on the side of the road on the shoulder. The sale of used tires and retreaded tires is booming. While a significant number of vehicle crashes are caused as a result of tire failures, and even though the purchaser believed they were getting safe tires based upon the visual conditions, many times the bargain leads to a catastrophic accident. Many times tires possess defects that cannot be easily detected visually. Oxidation or micro-cracks in tires can lead to a catastrophic tread or belt separation. However, unfortunately, the age of a tire does not prevent it from being sold at a cheap price on the used tire market or the retread market.

We recently successfully resolved a case where a tire experienced a belt separation causing the vehicle to lose control. The tire manufacturer claimed there was no defect on the tire. Most times, the tire installer or customer does not possess the ability to spot loose cords or belt separation in a tire, and unfortunately used tires are not subject to any federal standards. The road fitness of a tire is governed only under state tread depth laws.

Every year thousands of people will die and even more will be catastrophically injured due to the use of defective retread tires on vehicles. Environmentalists claim that retreading tires saves huge amounts of natural resources as opposed to replacing worn tires. However, safety should always take priority over profitability. Simply put, retread tires are second hand tires that have just been recoated with a tread veneer creating a potentially volatile situation.

Continue reading "A Tire Tread Separation Often Results In Lose Of Control Of A Vehicle With Tragic Consequences" »

The past is often a great predictor of the future. Many times by carefully investigating and gathering evidence of other similar instances involving a product defect, manufacturing defect, or design defect, which results in a catastrophic injury or wrongful death an experienced and skilled product liability attorney will be able use this as the best weapon in the arsenal when taking on manufacturers who claim that the accident was a freak occurrence or unique situation.

The skilled and experienced auto liability defect lawyers of Reiff & Bily have worked with lawyers across the United States for over three decades sharing documents, discovery, as well as evidence of other similar instances. We have developed an extraordinary national network of talented counsel, investigators, and experts who have been involved in similar cases and take a team approach to resolving auto product liability cases that involve seat back defects, seat belt defects, tire failures, SUV rollovers, crashworthiness, airbag defects, and roof crush. Several times a year, we meet as a group of lawyers working on similar cases to brainstorm and discuss issues and concerns with particular vehicle manufacturers, as well as current trial strategies that have been successful. Obviously there are many common product design and manufacturing failures and information is the greatest commodity.

While gathering OSI or other similar instances in a product liability case may be difficult for a “lone wolf” attorney, the experienced product liability and auto defect lawyers of Reiff & Bily work with teams of investigators, experts, and experienced lawyers throughout the United States and possess the experience, knowledge, and documents to fight against some of the world’s largest manufacturers. We continue to practice law representing catastrophically injured victims and those wrongfully killed with a motto that adversity causes some men to break and others to break records. We have a passion for justice.

Reiff & Bily is a catastrophic injury and wrongful death law firm based in Pennsylvania with emphasis on product liability and automotive defect claims. The lawyers of Reiff & Bily have recently joined forces with the legendary Beasley Firm and together our attorneys have been awarded over $2 billion dollars since the mid-1950's. We always offer a free, no obligation consultation at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

What started out as an evening event with laughter, smiles, cider, and ginger snaps for a large family group ended up as a frightful hayride adventure resulting in broken bones, bruises, neck and back injuries when the seats and trailer being pulled by the truck broke apart. One of the young ladies was pinned underneath the side of the trailer that fell. According to one of the parties, the trailer had a shaky feel to it and as it gained speed going down the hill seemed to disintegrate.

Haunted hayrides seem innocuous and innocent to those of us who welcome Fall and look forward “Kodak” moments with the kids. Unfortunately, dangers that lurk about hayrides are not limited to those dressed in costumes attempting to scare the daylights out of you. The real dangers lie in defectively manufactured, designed and maintained trailers, that are covered with hay and blankets, and often overloaded when they carry the hay riders. Many times hayrides are operated by profit driven individuals or businesses who fail to understand that safety of the rider is paramount to profitability. Hayride operators owe a duty to their riders to properly maintain and inspect the trailer, seats, and railings, as well as provide proper and safe control and supervision of the riders. Many times the truck is being operated by someone with a curious or questionable background and if they take a sharp turn or make a sudden stop or travel too quickly down a hill, there may be an accident waiting to happen. According to news reports, this past weekend many hayride accidents occurred throughout the United States due to failure to have proper safety restraints or restrictions and governance.

Our hearts, thoughts, and prayers go out to those injured in hayride accidents. While I don’t wish to take the fun out of life, I just want you to make sure that before you go on a hayride, do a little bit of due diligence and recognize that accidents do happen. Make sure the facility has an excellent record of success and safety and don’t be afraid to ask questions.

The experienced hayride and amusement accident and premise liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily have evaluated thousands of cases involving catastrophic injuries, broken arms, and unfortunately wrongful deaths, and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for victims and their families. For more information, contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

For over three decades, our experienced auto and defective seat back lawyers have investigated and litigated auto product defect cases and those which involve catastrophic injury resulting from a defective seat back. Unfortunately many cars have defective seat design and in a low or medium speed collision the seat fails and allows the occupant to be thrust forward or rearward or even ejected from the vehicle. This type of action often results in a catastrophic injury including but not limited to paraplegia, quadriplegia and brain dysfunction. When a seat collapses or is thrust forward, the effectiveness of the restraint system notably fails and injuries may also be caused to passengers in the rear of the vehicle as the seat collapses upon them with increased load and forces.

Automobile manufacturers have been aware of seat back failures and defects for decades and have taken little steps to improve safety due to the fact that the governmental safety standards establish a weak minimum for safety.

Recently there has been a wake of recalls for defective seat backs. In the last year, Ford recalled many 2011 Explorers with allegations that the potential for defective seat backs may not provide required strength in a crash increasing the risk of injury. Unfortunately manufacturers of car seats are not required to test car seats in crash tests and our skilled auto product defect and seat back defect attorneys do not believe that safety standards are stringent enough to prevent fatalities and catastrophic injuries due to lack of proper seat strength standards.

Recently our experienced auto product defect lawyers have joined forces with the legendary Beasley Firm to create the Beasley Reiff Law Group and together have been awarded more than $2 billion dollars in settlements, awards, and verdicts since 1958. For more information, please contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

When a vehicle is in a collision, the last thing that you expect to happen is that the fuel tank will rupture and that the occupants will be trapped in a fiery fuel fed explosion. The rupture of a fuel tank often leads to a catastrophic event when the escaping vapors mix quickly with the air and are ignited often times resulting in a fiery explosion.

Automakers and fuel tank manufacturers have known for years that fuel tank integrity is an important element if the vehicle impacts with another vehicle, rolls over or has another impact with a fixed object. Most people will remember the notorious Ford Pinto which almost always sustained a gas tank rupture in crashes over 25 mph. Typically in a Pinto rear-end collision, the rear-end of the car would buckle, ride up the seat back, and the tube leading to the gas tank would be ripped away from the tank itself and gas would immediately leak on the roadway around the car. The buckled gas tank would be jammed up against the different housing and protruding bolts would often gash holes in the tank and spill more gas on the road. All that was needed to spark an explosion was a cigarette, scraping metal, or an electrical spark and a flame would engulf the vehicle and the passengers inside. Added to the fact, if the doors were jammed, the passengers would be unable to get out and would burn to death. Lawyers were able to demonstrate successfully that Ford engineers put profits ahead of safety concerns and unfortunately even today, many vehicle manufacturers still place gas tanks and fuel lines in unsafe locations and use cheap materials to manufacture fuel tanks and fuel delivery systems and must be held accountable for the results of their actions.

Many times the placement of a fuel tank on the side or rear of a vehicle where it can be punctured is a recurring problem, as well as the use of cheap and unsafe materials connecting fuel tanks to fuel filter necks. Many times manufacturers of fuel tanks in vehicles utilize unsafe materials in the manufacturer of fuel delivery lines. When you pay your hard earned dollars for a motor vehicle, whether it be a motorcycle or automobile, you have every right to expect that it is crashworthy and will protect you in a foreseeable collision.

The experienced Pennsylvania automotive product liability and gas tank explosion and fuel fed fire defect lawyers of Reiff & Bily have dedicated their practice to representing those catastrophically injured or wrongful killed due to car accidents and auto product defects. Many of these claims have been referred to us by other lawyers who understand that we have years of experience in this complex legal arena. Recently the Philadelphia car accident and auto product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily have joined forces with the Beasley Firm and together our attorneys have been awarded billions of dollars since 1957. As always, we offer a free, confidential no obligation consultation if you wish to discuss your claim. For more information, contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

For over three decades my partners, associates, and I have investigated and litigated many claims against manufacturers of defective products. A defective product usually involves a design defect, manufacturing defect, or marketing defect. The law holds manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of products responsible for products that pose a danger to users or consumers as a result of a design or manufacturing defect.

Unfortunately many product defect legal cases involve allegations of fraud or unfair business practices and many manufacturers of defective products that cause catastrophic disfiguring injuries or wrongful death will go to great lengths to conceal the cause of an injury or death despite the fact that they knew for decades about root causes of a problem. Many large corporations employ systematic and exact strategies that are carefully hidden from public eye until a skilled and experienced product liability lawyers carefully investigate and dissect these claims based upon a catastrophic injury or wrongful death.

In many of our product liability legal cases, we have reviewed confidential intra and inter-company communications clearly revealing coverups and on many occasions whistleblower employees have come forward with knowledge of evidence concealment involving the manufacturer. Taking on major corporations for product defects litigation requires legal skill and experience that often takes decades to develop. Product liability litigation matters are generally intellectually challenging and complex.

Since 1979 the experienced Pennsylvania product liability attorneys of Reiff & Bily have been researching and litigating numerous product defect and design cases with great success. Recently our skilled product liability trial lawyers have joined forces with the legendary product liability lawyers of the Beasley Firm to create the Beasley Reiff Law Group. Together our job is to determine who is responsible for placing victims and their families in an unforeseen and unimaginable position when tragedy strikes. We believe that manufacturers must be held accountable for product defects and the lack of concern for consumer safety and always believe that safety should never be an option and always trumps profitability.

Since 1957, the combined forces of our lawyers have recovered over $2 billion dollars. We always offer a free, no obligation consultation to those injured as a result of a defective product. For more information, contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

The Ford Motor Company announced that it will recall over 1 million pickup trucks including the popular F-150 due to corrosion problems involving straps that hold fuel tanks to the truck. The recall effects 1.2 million older trucks sold or registered in 21 states, and it was noted that the corrosion problem was more prominent in colder regions due to corrosion from roadway salt. Ford announced that it will repair the trucks for free.

Models affected are 1997 to 2003 Ford F-150, 2004 F-150 Heritage, 1997-1999 F-250, 2002 to 2003 Lincoln Blackwood. This announcement follows another major recall involving Ford’s F series truck which has been one of the best selling vehicles in America.

In April, Ford expanded a recall of F-150 pickups to about 1.2 million vehicles due to front airbags which could deflate without the vehicle being involved in a crash.

The Philadelphia auto defect product liability and defective airbag law firm of Reiff & Bily salute Ford’s proactive stance in these recalls.

As a top amusement park accident lawyer and top hayride accident lawyer for over three-decades, I am always concerned but not surprised to learn when many innocent and unknowing victims are seriously injured as a result of a hayride accident.

Recently 44 members of a church group were injured during a hayride accident in Washington state when a tractor pulling a trailer jack-knifed ejecting passengers onto the roadway. According to news sources, the tractor was heading down the steepest hill on Shaw Island, Washington where the hill’s surface material was compacted gravel with a 5% downgrade. The hay bale trailer was loaded with hay and 50 people when the tractor gained speed. According to news sources, the trailer did not have brakes and was literally pushing the tractor down the hill and the front axle of the trailer failed spilling the passengers on the roadway resulting in broken bones, sprains, and lacerations to many of the victims. The accident remains under investigation and the police are also looking into a heavy load of people and logs that were placed in the trailer for seating, together with maintenance records for the tractor and trailer.

Hayrides are quasi-amusement rides and in my humble opinion as a hayride and defective trailer accident lawyer who has investigated and litigated these claims, many hayrides are simply accidents waiting to happen when proper control mechanisms are not in place. The operators of hayrides owe the highest duty of care to the passengers on the ride. They are often operated in dark and noisy environments frequently visited by children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has estimated that a number of serious injuries resulting from hayrides and trailer malfunctions has risen dramatically. Unfortunately most hayrides involve the use of a trailer hitch to a tractor or truck pull and NHTSA has admitted that no standard exists for such trailer hitches. Many state laws, including Pennsylvania, are silent as to the design and construction specification for many of the trailers used in hayrides.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families of this accident.

The amusement and hayride accident lawyers of Reiff & Bily always offer a free, no obligation confidential consultation to victims of amusement park accidents and hayride accidents. For more information, contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

As an seat belt design defects and flaws, it is important to understand that airbags and seat belts compliment each other in their function and new automotive technology has advanced to the point where airbag systems and occupant restraints are completely intertwined. Most airbag sensor modules report back to an event data recorder. A poorly designed airbag sensor will often deprive the occupant of pretensioner on the seat belt. Load limiters are specifically designed to work with airbags and if an airbag fails to deploy a seat belt can spool out dangerously exposing the occupant to a catastrophic injury and unfortunately many times a fatality. The intertwining of the smart systems controlling airbags and seat belts in vehicles requires a non-failure and proper design of the load limiters and pretensioners.

A poorly designed occupant classification sensor often results in the failure of an airbag to deploy. It is important in any type of airbag and seat belt failure case to immediately secure the vehicle and avoid spoilation of evidence so that valuable forensic evidence can be collected from the date recorders, as well as vehicle examination, to support a seat back or airbag defect claim.

Unfortunately, our office was just retained in a tragic case where a child was brain damaged and lost vision only to discover that the prior lawyer who handled the case never sent a non-spoilation letter and failed to preserve the evidence. Despite the fact that the first attorney has repeatedly informed the clients that the vehicle was in a secure and safe environment, the vehicle turned out to be left in a junk yard with the allegedly defective components cannibalized and the vehicle became a storage facility for used tires.

Continue reading "Airbags and Seat Belts Must Work Together As They Are Complimentary In Fashion and A Failure Of Any Components Can Be Catastrophic" »

According to news sources, Ford bowed to pressure from government regulators on Thursday, April 13, 2011 to widen the recall of America’s top selling vehicle - the F-150 pickup - due to the fact that its airbags deploy at the wrong time. The recall now covers nearly 1.2 million F-150's built for 2004 and 2005 model years and some 2006 models. The recall is based upon the fact that a potential electrical short can cause the airbags to inflate without a crash and injure drivers. Sources indicate that Ford had initially resisted the government’s wishes to expand the recall.

As experienced Pennsylvania airbag defect and and auto product liability lawyers, we salute the effort of regulators emphasizing public safety with their more aggressive behavior and quicker response to automobile defect and airbag problems once there is an awareness of the same. Our experienced Pennsylvania auto defect and airbag defect lawyers believe that the regulator’s actions indicate that it will be harder for other automakers to limit the size of future recalls. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration regulates car safety and has recorded evidence of 269 cases in which airbags deployed inadvertently resulting in 98 injuries.

Reiff & Bily has recently joined forces with the legendary Beasley Firm to form the Beasley Reiff Law Group. If you or a loved one has sustained a catastrophic injury or wrongful death due to an alleged airbag defect, please contact us online at www.beasleyreifflawgroup.com or toll free at 1-800-588-0130 for a free, no obligation consultation.

After a 2008 Toyota Corolla airbag failed to deploy after a vehicle hit a deer at 55 mph, the U.S. National Highway and Transportation Safety Authority was called in to investigate a potential airbag defect issue. Thankfully, no one was hurt in this accident. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration indicated that the possible recall could affect as many as 170,000 vehicles as the Corolla has been Toyota’s second best selling model after the Camry. Since 2009, Toyota has recalled more than 13.7 million vehicles in the United States to address safety complaints, with the most prominent being the unintended acceleration issue.

At the Philadelphia auto product liability and airbag defect firm of Reiff & Bily, we have had extensive experience investigating airbag defects. Airbags are supposed to meet the needs of the occupant in a variety of crash situations. In the last year, numerous other automobile manufacturers recalled their vehicles due to airbag defects and component failures. Many times smart airbag sensor systems fail and many times defective airbag design or installation can fool a smart airbag into not deploying when it should deploy or to over-aggressively deploy. The Philadelphia airbag defect lawyers of Reiff & Bily salute the efforts of NHTSA in investigating this potential hazardous situation and applaud Toyota’s efforts to further investigate a potentially hazardous problem. Our skilled Pennsylvania auto defect and defective airbag lawyers have acquired years of unmatched experience in fighting against some of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers and manufacturers of defective component parts with some of the highest record breaking results achieved for our clients injured by airbag defects.

Recently the Philadelphia airbag defect lawyers of Reiff & Bily have joined forces with the legendary Beasley Firm to form the Beasley Reiff Law Group. For a free, no obligation consultation, please contact us online at www.beasleyreifflawgroup.com or toll free at 1-800-588-0130.

In the last month and a half, there have been nearly 20 recalls concerning potential manufacturing and product defects on automobiles. This is normally boring information to the ordinary news reader or consumer. As an experienced Philadelphia product liability and automotive defect lawyer who has successfully fought for the rights of injured consumers since 1979, I salute the integrity of manufacturers coming forth to recall a product once they are aware of a danger. Just a few years ago, it seemed to me that manufacturers would go to great lengths to cover up any and all defects putting profitability ahead of consumer safety.

Recently the Beasley Reiff Law Group was formed consisting of a nationally renowned experienced group of Pennsylvania product liability attorneys with more than a half a decade of record breaking success representing clients who have been catastrophically injured or wrongfully killed in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States as a result of using dangerous or defective products. To the uninitiated reader of recalls, it would seem that products are getting more dangerous. However, it is this experienced defective product attorney’s opinion that the vast majority of product recalls are due to defects in design and manufacturers now recognize that it is time to put safety above profitability in response to increased regulatory pressure from federal agencies and ultimately record shaking product liability and class action lawsuits and verdicts.

Manufacturers of defective products can no longer act with ignorance against the consumer or they will be punished. Most recalls stem around inadequacy of warning and instruction, manufacturing defects, and defective design. As an experienced product liability attorney who has played out many of these issues in our courtrooms, I feel that trial lawyers in conjunction with government authorities are finally driving the message home to manufacturers. Make a safer product or you will ultimately be punished.

Recently the product liability attorneys of Reiff & Bily teamed with the legendary Beasley Firm who have represented consumers injured or wrongfully killed by defective products since 1956. Our award winning defective product lawyers of The Beasley Reiff Law Group have collectively been awarded in excess of $2 billion dollars for over a half century and have recovered hundreds of awards, verdicts, and settlement exceeding $1 million dollars.
If you or a loved one has been injured or killed as a result of a defective product, contact us online at www.reiffandbily.com or toll free a 1-800-421-9595.

The driver of a 1998 Ford Winstar, Eric Polston, was paralyzed in December 2005 when his vehicle began to rollover. Although the driver was wearing a seat belt during the course of the a href="http://www.reiffandbily.com/lawyer-attorney-1325464.html">van rollover, he was ejected from the vehicle and sustained paralyzing injuries. A product liability claim was brought against the Ford Motor Company focusing on a defective design of the seat belt buckle and particularly the release button housed within the buckle of the restraint system. Plaintiff’s lawyers argued that the design utilized by Ford featured a protruding button. The top of the button was located above the top of the buckle permitting easier access to the button. The protrusion of the button renders the design of the buckle defective and unreasonably dangerous because it presents an unnecessary hazard for inadvertent release. By the late 1990's, the entire automobile industry including Ford moved away from the protruding buckle to a safer flush design.

If you or a loved one has sustained a catastrophic injury or wrongful death due to a defectively designed product, please feel free to contact one of the experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily. Effective January 1, 2011, the Pennsylvania product liability law of Reiff & Bily has joined forces with the legendary Beasley Firm and collectively since 1958, both firms have been awarded in excess of $2 billion dollars representing the rights of catastrophically injured individuals throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and United States. For a free, no obligation consultation contact us online at www.reiffandbily.com or toll free at 1-800-421-9595.

In an attempt to protect consumers from dangerous or potentially dangerous products, Ford Motor Company recalled more than 31,000 vehicles on Wednesday, March 2, 2011 due to the risk of possible fuel leak and electrical issues according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration website. Ford recalled 23,688 Ford Rangers stating that the protective layer of the engine line fuel line near the throttle body shield may not be properly installed. It was stated that this could eventually lead to a fuel leak but Ford stated it was not aware of any fires related to this problem.

In a separate recall notice, Ford stated it would recall 88,022 spanning 7 models from the model year 2011 because the electrical system may short and prompt fires. The models affected by the recall include Ford Edge Crossover, Lincoln MKX, and the F series line of pickup trucks F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450, and F-550. Consumers have the right to expect that the products they purchase are safe for use or consumption. Getting in a car accident is dangerous enough without having to worry about the possibility of your car being engulfed in flames due to a design defect. Fuel fed fires due to design or manufacturing defects are a real danger and often can do more harm than the actual crash.

The Pennsylvania fuel fed fire lawyers, automotive defect, and product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily have been researching and handling numerous automobile defect design cases since 1979. The National Fire Protection Association reported that during 2004 fire departments responded to an estimated 266,500 highway type vehicle fires which claimed 520 lives and cost almost a billion dollars in direct property damage. Ford hit the headlines originally with fuel fed fires with Ford Pinto litigation. The Ford Pinto defect was in the design of a strap on the gas tank that made it susceptible to leakage and fire in a low to moderate speed collisions. We salute Ford’s effort in recall the vehicles in the March 2nd notice. The best way to prevent a fuel fed fire is to make sure the vehicle is inspected. Some of the causes of fuel fed or crash fires are poorly placed gas tanks, unshielded fuel systems, faulty wiring such as ignition system wires and other electrical system wiring which can short out and spark, fluid leaks from damaged fuel lines, hoses, caps, and filters, or exhaust system fires resulting from improperly installed muffler and exhaust systems. A car crash is not always necessary to cause a fire and the majority of fuel fed fires by poor manufacturing or car and truck design defects. These defects include filter cap neck separation, fuel fire from an added fuel tank that is not protected, fuel line tearing or separation of the fuel line from the carburetor, fuel pump, or fuel tank, fuel tank placement over the trunk floor, lack of barrier or shield to prevent a fuel tank rupture, lack of a fuel cutoff tank, lack of anti-syphoning device to prevent continued gas flows after a collision, puncture of a fuel tank because of poor design, protruding screw or object, or seam weld failure in the fuel tank.

Continue reading "Electrical Issues, Fuel Leak Risks, And Possibility Of Fires Prompt Another Ford Recall-Experienced Product Liability Lawyer Salutes Ford" »

As an experienced Pennsylvania product liability and automobile defect attorney who has litigated cases against major automobile manufacturers in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States, I applaud the unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court whereupon it agreed to let a lawsuit go forward in the State Court of California despite claims and complaints from the automobile manufacturer that Federal regulators gave the manufacturer an option whether to install lap belts or lap and shoulder belts in the middle seats in the back of a van. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, stated that the only way Mazda would be immune is if the “significant objective” of the Federal regulation was to give auto manufacturers a choice of which seat belts to install.

The Transportation Department gave no indication that its safety goals required the mixture of seat belt types that resulted from the manufacturer’s ability to chose different options said Justice Sonya Sotomayor in a concurrent argument. Added Justice Breyer, the more important reason why the Department of Transportation did not require lap and shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that the thought that this requirement would not be cost effective. The agency explained that it would be significantly be more expensive for manufacturers to install lap and shoulder belts in the rear middle and aisle seats than in seats next to car doors. But that fact - the fact that DOT made a negative judgement in cost effectiveness - cannot by itself show that the DOT sought to forbid Commonwealth torts in which the judge or jury might reach a different conclusion. Justice Breyer cited the Geier case often pulling in back into the preemption argument. In Geier, then the regulations history, the agency explanation and its consistently held interpretive use indicated that the regulations sought to maintain manfacturer’s choice in order to further significant regulatory objectives. Here are the same considerations indicate the contrary. We consequently conclude that even though state tort suit may restrict the manufacturer’s choice, it does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment that the full purpose is an objective of Federal law.

While many experts and vehicle defect attorneys have focused on potential flaws in the electronic throttle control systems on Toyotas leading to sudden acceleration, there have been many concerns surrounding this issue as well as difficulty proving the existence of electronic defects. Sources indicate that Toyota settled at least one sudden acceleration case so far for $10 million to the families of four people killed when a Lexus ES accelerated out of control in California in 2009. While many other auto manufacturers including Nissan, Volkswagen, BMW, and Chrysler have been using brake override systems for years, Toyota has been lagging behind, and in fact, NHTSA investigators approached Toyota regarding the possibility of installing brake override systems as early as August 2007. The following year Toyota ordered a feasibility study of the technology. Recently a United States Federal Judge handling most of the federal cases against Toyota denied efforts by Toyota to dismiss many of the allegations against it and particularly noted “the absence of a brake override system.” Toyota has agreed to pay almost $50 million in fines for failing to properly notify regulators of defects and for delaying recalls.

It seems to this experienced auto defect and product lawyer that Toyota maintains a clear pattern of ignoring or downplaying important safety issues. Safety should never be an option and public accountability and safety should take precedence over profitability.

The experienced vehicle product liability law firm of Reiff & Bily has been taking on the big automakers, representing individuals who have sustained catastrophic injuries and wrongful deaths due to automotive product defects. We are currently involved with a number of Toyota sudden acceleration claims.

As an experienced vehicle defect and product liability lawyer, I have fought hard over the last 32 years with many of my legal brethren across the United States to improve vehicle safety, maintaining that safety should never be an option and that automobile manufacturers ought to emphasize safety over profitability. 2010 is shaping up to be the largest year for recalls in the defective product arena. A Los Angeles Times article published on December 16th stated “The most comprehensive overhaul of motor vehicle safety laws in a decade which once seemed certain in the wake of Toyota’s sudden acceleration problems may never reach a vote from Congress.”

Proposed legislation S.3302 has 23 major provisions that would create new safety standards and increase fines against automakers for violating Federal rules and put an emphasis for the first time on safeguarding electronic systems now ubiquitous in motor vehicles. Legislation evolved as a result of investigations into the fatal accidents involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles that were the victim of sudden acceleration. It appears the main obstacle to passing the legislation according to auto safety advocates seems to be a Republican contingent which states there are higher priorities.

In this experienced product liability lawyer’s view, safety is and should be the number one priority. I have handled too many cases involving brain injuries, deaths, and catastrophic injuries which could have easily been prevented if this new proposed legislation was in place. The proposed bill would require vehicles to have a brake override system that cuts power if the driver applies the brake and the gas pedal is stuck. The bill would also increase civil penalties for violations of safety rules to a maximum of $300 million from $15 million now and for the first time establish standards for electronic systems that now operate vehicles.

As an experienced Pennsylvania product liability and auto defect lawyer since 1979, I make it my business to study and understand the defective product recall landscape. There is almost never a day that goes by when there is not a new recall posted. If you or your family owns a car there is a chance greater than not that you have received a recall notice this year. At my house we purchased two new cars, and yet there were two recalls due to potential catastrophic causing defects. One of them involved a brand new BMW for its failure to accelerate properly. As a Pennsylvania vehicle defect lawyer who sees some of the worst case scenarios one can imagine including wrongful death, paraplegia, quadriplegia, as well as other catastrophic brain injuries, I can state one thing for sure – if you receive a recall notice or miss the recall notice, it’s a big mistake. As Louis Pasteur once said, “chance favors the prepared mind.” A product recall most likely can prevent you and your loved ones from being involved in an accident, perhaps catastrophically injuring or killing you. For safety’s sake, it is not a bad idea to check the NHTSA website at safercar.gov and click on defects investigation and search complaints. You can also contact your automobile dealer’s repair department for current recall information, and always remember that if your vehicle is recalled, the cost for the repair is on the dealer.

The Office of Defects Investigation opened an investigation exploring rear axle failure of Windstar minivans. Real world data on Ford vehicles that have been serviced for up to 12 years supports the conclusion that a fracture of the rear axle in the vehicle can be dangerous and can lead to death. On October 15th Sean Bowman, a 22-year-old coast guard veteran and father of two young daughters, died when the rear axle of his 2001 Windstar suddenly failed and his vehicle crashed into a building in Massachusetts. The passenger in the vehicle was also catastrophically injured and remains hospitalized.

Prior to this, Ford had received hundreds of complaints and the vehicle had been recalled. Unfortunately for Sean Bowman and his passenger, they received their recall notice three days after the deadly crash and six weeks after the recall campaign had been announced. During a field test simulating an axle failure at 35 mph, the Windstar lost one rear wheel entirely and experienced a severe two wheel tip-up. If the test van had not been equipped with outriggers, it would have sustained a rollover. Ford states “vehicle testing simulating a separation of the rear attachment of lower control arm from the right subframe has shown that with moderate brake application that the vehicle can be steered and safely stopped. Vehicle testing simulating fracture of front subframe in the area of the rear body has shown that the vehicle remains absolutely controllable.” The investigation still remains open.

Bottom line, if you or a loved one is the owner of a Ford Winstar minivan, be careful and return it to the dealer for a careful inspection and analysis. There are approximately 612,000 affected Windstars and for customers owning Windstar models from 1998 through 2000, Ford is offering to repurchase the vehicle at Blue Book “excellent” value regardless of condition.

At the Pennsylvania vehicle defect and airbag defect law firm of Reiff & Bily, we believe that safety should never be an option. We were recently retained by the family of a young woman who was broadsided by another vehicle that ran a red light when the young operator was not paying attention and speaking on a cell phone. Our client, who is now in a coma with a severe brain injury, had a green light and was t-boned on the driver’s side at the B-pillar where an airbag sensor would normally be. The technology to use side airbags at the time of the manufacture of this car was well known, and in fact many other vehicle manufacturers had chosen to use side airbags to prevent such a catastrophic injury from occurring. However on this particular vehicle it was an option.

The purpose of airbags is to keep the occupants of the vehicle safe during an impact, and testing the same vehicle revealed that had an airbag been in position and properly deployed, the victim would not have sustained nearly as severe an injury if not any injury at all. One of the most common problems we see in airbag cases is the failure to deploy. However, many problems also occur when airbags are not installed in vehicles when in fact they should have been. In our case, we will argue that the car manufacturer had airbags in its other vehicles; however, they failed to install them in this particular vehicle. We believe that automobile manufacturers have an obligation to meet certain safety standards and to fulfill their promises to customers putting safety over profitability, and of course, putting safety first.

Last Sunday morning in Manhattan at approximately 8:00 a.m., I was going to get a cup of Starbucks coffee when at approximately 72nd and Broadway I saw a cab traveling with a passenger go into a fast and violent skid and I heard a loud screech and saw sparks flying. Afterwards I looked across the street and saw a tire which flew off of the taxicab rolling across the street striking another moving vehicle. What was more frightening was that I just finished a case representing the driver of a car that had just been repaired at a well known tire manufacturer’s facility and the tire on that vehicle had also not been properly secured and also flew off at 65 mph causing a catastrophic accident on I-95.

As a Pennsylvania vehicle defect and tire defect lawyer who has handled thousands of catastrophic injury and death cases in Pennsylvania since 1979, this phenomenon is not as unique as one would think. If a tire is not installed properly and is not regularly inspected or maintained, it becomes a deadly weapon. Who is responsible for the injuries will depend on the history and circumstances surrounding why the tire came off the vehicle. In the case that I recently concluded, we were able to show by virtue of a receipt that the vehicle had just been repaired at a tire shop and sent on the highway less than 10 minutes before the accident. Many times a tire falls off due to a lug sheer caused by under-torque or over-torque or cross treading upon installation. Believe it or not, the repair facility denied liability and the case proceeded to court. Vehicle defects, detaching tires, and defective tires are serious business to innocent and unknowing victims.

If you or a loved one has suffered a catastrophic injury or wrongful death due to a tire defect, or improperly installed tire, please feel free to contact one of our experienced Pennsylvania vehicle defect and tire defect lawyers for a free, no obligation consultation. You can be sure that we will carefully evaluate and investigate your case and hold any of the wrongdoers responsible for monetary damages. We always offer a free, no obligation consultation and of course, we do not charge a fee unless we win your case. Contact us online at www.reiffandbily.com or toll free at 1-800-421-9595.

Earlier in November 2010, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Williamson v. Mazda Motor Company of America. In this case, the Court addressed the issue of Federal preemption. As a Pennsylvania auto product liability lawyer who has been representing individuals and families of individuals who have been killed or catastrophically injured as a result of manufacturers’ defects, I am somewhat concerned that the current Supreme Court may side with big business rather than the individual consumer.

In this case, the family of Thanh Williamson, age 32, sued Mazda Motor Corporation of America following a 2002 car accident that killed Ms. Williamson as she was riding in the rear aisle seat of the second row of a 1993 MPV mini van. At the time the mini van was manufactured, the seat belts in the back were lap seat belts. More specifically, they did not contain a shoulder harness and were permitted by law. The Williamson van collided with a Jeep that became detached from a motor home that was towing it. The collision forced a jackknife of the plaintiff’s body around her lap belt causing severe abdominal injuries and internal bleeding according to the filed lawsuit.

Arguments were made at the lower trial level that the law gave Mazda the option of selecting the safest design and that Mazda made the wrong decision that a safer alternative design existed and that the additional cost of the design was minimal (merely pennies per vehicle). In short, the family alleged that Mazda made the decision not to install the safest seat belts and put profitability ahead of consumer safety.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, indicated that he would vote to limit lawsuits and reenforce a 2000 decision that shielded car manufacturers from some claims. Justice Stephen Breyer said he was inclined to defer to the federal agencies which said that standards shouldn’t shield car manufacturers from suits claiming they did not do enough to make vehicles as safe as possible. Interestingly enough, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan voluntarily recused herself from the case due to the fact that she felt it would be inappropriate for her to be involved in the decision since during her term as Solicitor General for President Obama she urged the Court to consider this case. If there is a deadlock or a tie in the vote, Mazda would win due to the fact that the opinion of the lower court of appeals would stand.

As a practicing Pennsylvania personal injury and product liability lawyer, I believe that lawyers are the unsung heroes and policemen of society in that they give juries a chance to speak out against manufacturers who produce unsafe products. With the rising number of lawsuits filed against automobile manufacturers in the last few years and the more recent number of lawsuits filed against Toyota, this is an important case for all of us to watch. I will be curious to read the final opinion of the Court.

Eric Polston, the operator of a 1998 Ford Windstar van, swerved to avoid a dog, causing the van to roll over. Although Polston was wearing a seat belt, he was ejected from the vehicle during the rollover and was paralyzed. As a result of the accident, he was rendered a tetraplegic with partial use of his hands and arms. A product liability action was filed focusing on the design of the seat belt buckle, particularly the release button housed within the buckle restraint system.

The design utilized by Ford featured a protruding button. The top of the button is located above the top of the buckle housing permitting easier access to the button. The protrusion of the button renders the design of the buckle defective and unreasonably dangerous because it presents an unnecessary hazard for inadvertent release. Ford’s release button for their seatbelt buckles was designed primarily to address aesthetics. A protruding button design increases the risk for accidental or inadvertent release of the seatbelt. Since the design was manufactured by TRW, it was supplied not only on a number of Ford vehicles but also other manufacturers as well. By the late 1990s, the entire industry, including Ford, started moving away from the protruding buckle to a safer design with a flush button. (Top release can still be dangerous and inadvertently release.) When the jury's verdict came in, one of the things Eric was most thrilled about was the jury's vindication about his seatbelt use.

The Pennsylvania vehicle defect lawyers of Reiff & Bily have represented victims who have sustained catastrophic injuries and wrongful death as a result of defectively designed automobile restraint systems including but not limited to airbag defects, seatbelt defects, door latch deficiencies, non-use of laminated glass and defective seat backs.

Recently I had the opportunity to meet with a client who was driving his vehicle when he crashed front on squarely to the rear of another vehicle. When the impact occurred, the airbags did not deploy and as a result he sustained a broken neck. The vehicle was a late model GMC Denali equipped with airbags. In such an accident, the airbag is normally designed as a safety device with the intention to protect the occupant who is correctly restrained with a seat belt.

As an experienced Pennsylvania airbag defect lawyer, I receive many calls each month from potential clients wondering why their airbags did not deploy. Airbags are designed to deploy in a frontal crash above a threshold level of a certain speed and when the airbag does not deploy properly there is most likely a defect in the airbag system. An airbag is not supposed to deploy in a minor frontal crash impact to the undercarriage of the vehicle or an impact with a small animal or when driving on a rough road. For that matter, it should never deploy if a vehicle is not involved in an accident.

In the case at hand, it appears that the frontal airbag may not have deployed due to a faulty sensor which was not properly calibrated. In fact, we are now aware of several other similar instances of non-deployment and other issues with a frontal airbag involving GMC vehicles. On certain utility vehicles and trucks, the airbag sensory diagnostic module contains an anomaly resulting in airbag non-deployment which increases the risk of injury or death to its occupants.

As experienced Pennsylvania defective vehicle product liability lawyers, we have investigated several cases where a fuel tank was installed in an improper location by a manufacturer, making it prone to rupture, leak, and explode in a rear-end collision or in the case of a rollover when it hits another object.

Recently NHTSA has asked General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, as well as Toyota, to reveal data from comparable vehicles including but not limited to the 1993-2004 Chevrolet Blazer, 1993-2004 Ford Explorer, and 1993-2004 Toyota Forerunners. Their request seeks all records of defects, warranties, claims, complaints, lawsuits, and field reports related to fuel storage systems and reports of fire.

The number of defective gas tank fatal fires from 1993 to 2004 in Jeep Grand Cherokee is about 4 times higher than other SUVs according to the Center for Auto Safety. After 2005, Chrysler moved the gas tank inside the frame offering more protection. Obviously, the risk of a gas tank explosion and its consequences are quite significant. Most of the driving public is not fully aware of the potential for serious injury and wrongful death that improperly located gas tanks pose. Being that the automobile manufacturers know that the gas tanks are improperly located and chose to place profits over safety rather than recalling these vehicles for a vehicle defect and quick fix. Many of the automobile manufacturers enter into confidential settlements in favor of victims who sustain serious burns and death.

If you or a loved one has been involved in a defective vehicle accident involving a gas tank explosion suffering permanent scarring, disfigurement, or death, please contact one of the Pennsylvania vehicle defect lawyers at Reiff & Bily immediately for a free, no obligation consultation. It is important to hold manufacturers responsible for their actions.

In response to the Toyota Corporation sudden acceleration crisis, legislation titled “The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010” is being drafted representing one of the biggest overhauls of Federal motor vehicle safety regulation in a generation. The most recent comparable action was more than a decade ago when Congress passed new safety rules in the aftermath of the rollover problem involving Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires. It is likely that this bill will face opposition from automakers particularly for the following: (1) a provision that removes the existing $16.4 million dollar cap for damages; (2) civil penalties against manufacturers for violations of safety laws; and (3) boosting the fine for violations to $20,000 from the current $6,000.

Many provisions of the proposal include:

1. Require an automobile to stop within a certain distance when the vehicle’s engine is operating with an open throttle. This requirement can be met with a brake override system which insures that the brakes override the accelerator pedal.

2. All car companies will be required to install black boxes or event data recorders to record information about the vehicle before and after the crash and the black boxes must be easily downloadable by third parties.

3. New standards for vehicle electronic systems and keyless ignition systems requiring automakers to standardize the way a driver will bring the vehicle under control in an emergency.

4. Raising the cap on penalties that can be assessed against carmakers from $5,000 to $25,000 a vehicle.

5. NHTSA would receive additional funding and new powers including the ability to order an immediate recall if it finds an imminent hazard of death or serious injury.

6. Includes whistle blower protections and promotes reporting of vehicle defects by requiring a sticker on new vehicles with contact information for the NHTSA.

7. Auto executives who knowingly provide false information to federal regulators would be liable for fines up to $250 million dollars.

8. Create a $9.00 fee per vehicle payable by the manufacturer to fund NHTSA and enforcement of the new requirements under the bill.

The experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyers and Pennsylvania vehicle defect lawyers and Philadelphia car accident lawyers of Reiff & Bily salute Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) for proposing this legislation.

As experienced Philadelphia car accident lawyers and Pennsylvania vehicle defect lawyers since 1979, we believe that it is finally time for the government to start holding automakers accountable for hiding defects, as well as for it to promote vehicle safety.

As an experienced car accident and auto product liability lawyer since 1979 and somewhat of a computer geek with a curious mind since childhood, I have to confess that I think the over-computerization and digitization of cars creates risk for drivers. Recently on a flight back from Puerto Rico, I had the opportunity to chat with a pilot on the advantages and disadvantages of an Airbus, which is a fly by wire computerized plane versus a Boeing plane which according to the pilot is more mechanical and not as computer oriented or controlled.

The pilot explained to me that although the Airbus may be more sophisticated in terms of electronics, he had concerns with backup systems if God forbid there was an electronic failure. How many of you have had glitches with computers, remote controls or other less complex systems than those digitized or electronic systems which control acceleration and braking and other systems in your vehicle? It seems that as technology advances, electronics and computerized systems are replacing the more primitive mechanical systems that once controlled automobile functions.

Continue reading "A Practical and Old Fashioned Product Liability Lawyer Expresses Concerns about Computers and Electronics in Today’s Cars" »

With mounting Congressional probes, mushrooming lawsuits and a federal probe into the reporting of sudden unintended acceleration defects, the risk of criminal charges against Toyota has been raised. The legal stakes are high for Toyota because it is the first automaker embroiled in major safety issues since tough new criminal penalties became law after rollover recalls in 2000 involving Ford Explorers and Firestone Tires. The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act for the first time made individuals who intentionally mislead federal regulators about safety defects subject to possible criminal fines and/or prison.

Toyota revealed last month that a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York subpoenaed documents relating to sudden acceleration in various vehicles and braking issues in the Prius. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating the timeliness of Toyota’s reporting of its sudden unintended acceleration complaints and fixes. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated that Toyota could face civil penalties but the grand jury subpoenas signal that the United States Attorney for that district has a criminal investigation underway. NHTSA has often worked closely with the Justice Department in high profile safety investigations. Toyota claims it reported in a timely manner and is complying with all subpoenas. The Justice Department will not comment.

If you or a loved one has sustained an injury due to a Toyota defect, please give one of our experienced Philadelphia car accident lawyers at Reiff & Bily a call for a free, no obligation consultation at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

It was astounding to read that Toyota’s training of workers to maintain quality control failed to keep up with the company’s rapid growth according to Toyota President Akio Toyoda in an interview with Major Business Japanese Daily. Toyoda apologized for Toyota’s missteps in dealing with the aspects blamed in dozens of fatalities. He told members of Congress that his company’s rapid growth had “confused” their priority placed over safety.

As an experienced catastrophic injury lawyer specializing in automotive defects, I have been ever aware of the fact that many of the automobile manufacturers continue to place an emphasis on profits rather than consumer safety. I do not believe that Akio Toyoda’s words will bring great comfort to the families of those who were catastrophically injured or tragically killed as a result of deficiencies in training and workmanship caused by rapid growth expansion of his company.

As an experienced Philadelphia automotive product liability attorney, I have investigated cases of sudden acceleration numerous times since 1979. Initially in the early days, I must confess that I believed that mostly driver error was to blame and that I was somewhat suspicious of an automotive product defect. Recent news stories indicate that there have been over 1,500 complaints of sudden acceleration noted on Toyota models, not included in the 5.6 million already recalled vehicles.

My wife drives a new BMW 530 series and I have noticed at least five occasions of sudden, unintended acceleration and have taken the car to the dealer and it is often difficult to replicate the circumstances of the same and I am starting to understand the difficulty that the manufacturers and dealers have repairing the system without a definitive diagnosis.

Continue reading "The Mystery of Sudden Acceleration Continues To Plague Automobile Manufacturers - Some Suggest Cosmic Waves Are To Blame" »

Despite the fact that Toyota is all over the headlines lately with noted auto product defects concerning sudden unintended acceleration, there is light at the end of the tunnel. As an experienced automotive product liability lawyer for over 30 years, I can recall that in 1978 a design flaw caused gas tanks to explode on Ford Pintos when they were in rear-end collisions killing 27 people. An internal Ford memo showed that Ford execs had weighed the cost of recalls ($129 million dollars against estimated lawsuits of $50 million dollars). Under pressure from NHTSA and Ralph Nadar, Ford recalled 1.5 million Pintos in 1978 and the brand was scrapped in 1980.

Fast forward to the year 2000 with the Ford Firestone debacle where tread separation on some lines of tires caused many Ford Explorers to roll over with a reported 250 deaths and over 3,000 catastrophic injuries. Ford and Firestone engaged in an ugly public feud over who was to blame. The response was that Firestone recalled all 6.5 million of its tires on the road and all but 200,000 were brought in and replaced for free. In 2001 Firestone cut ties with Ford, recaptured market share and turned a profit in two years.

Continue reading "Although There Has Been Much Bad News in the Press Concerning Safety of Automobiles, the Good News Is That Traffic Deaths Have Decreased As Automakers Strive To Make Safer Vehicles" »

Although Toyota Motor Corporation’s statements indicate that internal testing has ruled out electronic problems as the cause for sudden acceleration, the automaker is reluctant to provide results from those tests and make employees with personal knowledge of the testing available for professional interviews. As an experienced automotive product liability attorney familiar with the hide and seek game played by auto manufacturers, I am not sure that I understand Toyota’s basis for repeated assertions that it is confident that there are no electronic defects contributing to the incidents of sudden unintended acceleration. Certainly the fact that more than 60 people have complained of sudden acceleration incidents after repairs by Toyota as part of their recall seems to shed doubts on the credibility of Toyota’s assertion. Basic and immediate substantiation of Toyota’s claims is called for and warranted in view of these circumstances.

First we were told by Toyota that the problem was with floor mats and stuck accelerator pedals. Then there were other convoluted explanations. Frankly, I am not so sure that Toyota is even aware of where their problem rests and perhaps they should take some of the money they spend on advertising their integrity and earmark it for a more rigorous testing of their vehicles for possible electronic defects. I am aware of an instance where an expert from the Southern Illinois University stated that he had been able to defeat a key safety feature in Toyota’s electronic throttle safety system.

The automotive product liability law firm of Reiff & Bily is committed to consumer safety resulting from automotive design or manufacturing defects.

As a result of the recent Toyota safety debacle and the massive amount of publicity surrounding these events, the Obama Administration is considering mandating brake overriding crash recording technologies and considering new rules of design of automobiles, including sophisticated and advanced brake technology and black boxes that record crash data and are easily downloaded. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated, “We are looking at the possibility of recommending brake override systems to manufacturers of all automobiles.” The system under consideration would allow the driver to override the accelerator by returning to idle if both the gas and brake pedals are being pressed at the same time, thus preventing an unintended sudden acceleration. Senator John D. Rockefeller has also stated that new laws may be created to expand federal authority over automotive safety issues to ensure that another massive recall does not occur.

While mistakes commonly happen and unforeseen consequences happen in the automotive design industry, one thing is for certain that more teeth and government regulations will go a long way to reduce tragic consequences.

The experienced automobile product liability lawyers at Reiff & Bily are committed to promoting consumer safety.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated that NHTSA is considering making brake override systems mandatory for all cars going forward as a way of coping with unintended sudden acceleration. We are now learning that many of the fixes by Toyota do not seem to be working and cars are still accelerating suddenly after the problem has allegedly been addressed in dealerships. Toyota has been inserting a shim to repair a Toyota accelerator pedal affected by the recall. The brake override system suggested would inform the engine that if the brake is depressed after accelerating in rapid fashion, such as an emergency or panic situation, that engine power should be reduced. Toyota is putting just such a system in many of the cars it sells in the U.S. starting in the spring. It is also offering to retrofit some models on the road now if the owner wants it done when they bring the car to the dealer for repair under the jammed floor mat recall. Brake override systems would only be added to certain vehicles with electronic throttles and Transportation Secretary LaHood made it clear that the order for implementing them would affect all automakers and not just Toyota.

A sudden acceleration syndrome is something that has affected all of the car manufacturers at one time or another for many years and is not just limited to Toyota. As an experienced automobile product liability lawyer, I have seen this problem on many of the other automobile manufacturers’ cars. Surprisingly, my wife owns a BMW 5 series which apparently accelerated on its own on two separate occasions within the last month and she narrowly escaped injuries to herself and others. When we go to analyze the situation, no trouble codes have been registered or found, yet I am certain that when I was driving the car which was stopped on an uphill grade, the car took off without my foot being on the gas pedal. Unfortunately many of the sudden acceleration problems are difficult to replicate and do not show when the car is connected to a computer for analysis. Many times the situation involves a bad sensor or circuit board which can be affected by elements on the highway or faulty manufacturer design. Specifically, the problem seems to occur when the car decelerates to a stop and the vehicle all of a sudden will buck once or twice with a sudden acceleration of the engines rpms reaching 2,000 to 3,000 rpm. Many times when a sudden acceleration occurs, the brakes do not work quick enough or hard enough to avoid a crash and for the past 10 or 15 years, many courts ruled in favor of the car companies in litigation, blaming the drivers for these accidents. Our law firm has been intimately involved with automotive product defects for many years. We are all too familiar with the manufacturers’ screaming blame game of driver error. As technology continues to advance and mechanical cable throttle is replaced with electronic throttle, software and sensors are involved and as we all know, this apparently is accompanied by technical glitches. Yes, driving by wire technology certainly comes at a cost and the issue here is not really who is to blame but in fact, working together to achieve a satisfactory resolution to this problem so that additional lives are not lost. I believe that the Toyota/Lexus media situation and resulting governmental inquiries and efforts of trial lawyers committed to representing injured consumers will dispel the myth of driver error and perhaps now a little bit of integrity by the manufacturers will be added to the equation.

As an experienced vehicle defect lawyer since 1979 specializing in catastrophic injuries and wrongful deaths, I am well aware of the secrecy that many automobile manufacturers go to in order to protect their product by putting profits ahead of consumer safety. In the last few weeks, there have been a number of outstanding revelations and smoking guns revealed in the Toyota crisis.

Lately another smoking gun has surfaced which will greatly undercut Toyota’s polished reputation for attempting to be holier than thou when it comes to disclosing safety issues and fixing potentially dangerous problems. According to this news story, Toyota apparently bargained with U.S. regulators to limit the scope and cost of its recall. Sources report that internal Toyota documents from July 2009 entitled “Wins For Toyota Safety” state that the firm saved 100 million dollars by convincing the NHTSA to limit an accelerator recall to 55,000 Lexus and Camry models. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Toyota document, by linking safety issues to corporate profits, could prompt difficult questions for Toyota company executives, adding to their problems as a result of the 8 million vehicle recall. This memo highlights Toyota’s aggressive efforts to save money rather than recall cars, putting profits ahead of consumer safety.

As an experienced vehicle product liability lawyer, I salute the national and international news media for calling attention to Toyota’s attempts to camouflage or sweep their situation under the carpet. I am now more than ever concerned that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration may also have not such an innocent role in that it agreed to this bargaining arrangement with Toyota when their job was to protect the American people from such behavior and irresponsible actions by Toyota.

Problems for Japanese automakers seem to be mounting with the increasing number of recalls in the past few weeks. Toyota has recalled approximately 8 or 9 million vehicles at this point in time, although I am not quite certain due to the fact that every other day there seems to be another recall notice published.

Recently Honda announced a recall of nearly a million vehicles due to defective airbags and overaggressive airbags that have been linked to catastrophic injuries and at least one fatality. Previously Honda announced a recall in 2008 and the summer of 2009 whereupon it was noted that the airbag inflators were producing too much pressure causing airbags to rupture sending dangerous parts towards the driver during an accident. These airbags are manufactured in the United States by a Honda subcontractor.

I recently resolved a case involving an overaggressive and defective airbag which caused blindness in one of my clients. The automobile manufacturer attempted to argue that it was not their fault and that the driver was simply out of position but we were successful countering this argument due to the fact that the driver was belted in the seat and argued that it is foreseeable during an accident that a driver or passenger can be jostled out of position. Frankly, the argument set forth by the automobile manufacturer was in this experienced airbag defect lawyer’s opinion complete nonsense and a red herring attempting to deflect focus from the more significant problem of the overaggressive airbag defect.

If you or a loved one has been involved in an accident caused by an airbag defect, please contact one of our experienced airbag defect lawyers for a free consultation. Don’t believe everything the manufacturers tell you. Our experience has clearly revealed that many of the manufacturers engage in a campaign of deny, delay and defend claims in their continuing effort to place profits over consumer safety.

As experienced product liability attorneys with over 30 years experience litigating cases against the world’s major automotive manufacturers, we at Reiff & Bily have witnessed first hand the practices used by Toyota and other auto manufacturers to conceal and deny serious design and manufacturing defects in their vehicles, emphasizing profits over consumer safety. Now, after years of foot-dragging, Toyota has finally acknowledged major problems with their vehicles which have placed the drivers in jeopardy many times when they take to the roads.

According to news sources, sudden and unexpected acceleration of Toyota vehicles has killed at least 30 people and seriously injured countless others in the last several years alone. One of our clients was driving on a major highway near Philadelphia when her vehicle suddenly accelerated to over 90 mph and nothing she did was able to slow the vehicle. Her car finally came to a stop when she left the road and drove up a steep embankment. Amazingly, she walked away from this incident with only minor injuries. Others have not been so lucky. In California, 4 people were killed when a new Lexus accelerated to over 100 mph, rolled over, and killed all 4 people in the car. Over 800 other incidents involving sudden, unintended acceleration have been documented in the U.S. alone, while hundreds of similar incidents have killed and injured people around the world. The Problem Is Real!!!

Continue reading "Toyota Dragged Their Feet" »

As an experienced automotive product liability lawyer, my legal brethren and myself who dedicate their practices to automotive product liability and consumer safety have been all too frustrated many times over the past few years when we attempt to download the black boxes from Toyotas and other Japanese auto manufacturers. More so than any other automakers that we litigate against, many of the Japanese automakers have placed roadblocks in our path in making data from black boxes accessible. Yoshimi Inaba, the President of Toyota North America, told a Senate Committee on Tuesday, March 2nd that the company would be delivering three data readers to the National Highway Safety Administration on Wednesday, March 3rd and that the company hoped to make the data more accessible to other systems by the middle of 2011.

Quite frankly as an experienced product liability lawyer who has had vast experience with the downloading of black boxes and the evaluation of data, I am curious why only three data readers are only being made available and why the consumer public and experts must wait until the middle of 2011 to receive more accessibility when citizens lives are knowingly in danger. Once again, it seems that profitability is being stressed over public safety in this game of hide and seek by Toyota. I have always believed that if you are confronted with a problem or safety issue, get the facts out there as soon as possible so other innocent victims are not killed or catastrophically injured.

I for one believe that Toyota is “hiding something” and for a company that prides itself on integrity, they are certainly not doing a great job putting their cards on the table as surveys now reveal that more than half of the people out there are less likely to buy a Toyota. On the positive side for major U.S. automobile manufacturers, sales are up but many analysts claim its at Toyota’s expense. By the way, it is important to note that the black box recording devices utilized on Toyotas are not so dissimilar from black boxes utilized on American cars as common safety features. However, one important aspect is that Toyotas can only be read by Toyota technicians with specialized readers which is not the case with black boxes manufactured by U.S. car companies. As I review the congressional hearings, there is a theatrical ring about it. The answer is quite simple, “... without integrity nothing stands.”

You can rest assured that the automotive product liability lawyers at Reiff & Bily and many other fine lawyers committed to the cause around the United States of America will do their best to ferret out the truth in these matters.

At Reiff & Bily in Philadelphia, we have received many telephone calls in the last several days concerning Toyota’s latest recall involving faulty brakes in its best selling Prius. As experienced automotive product liability and catastrophic injury lawyers, we are greatly concerned about this latest problem because properly functioning brakes are perhaps the most important safety feature on any car. In the U.S. alone, Toyota has recalled over 40,000 new Prius and Lexus automobiles manufactured after April 2009, due to problems with the cars’ braking systems. Toyota has announced that there is a problem with their computerized braking system in that there is a delayed reaction from the time the brake pedal is applied until the brakes actually take hold. This problem has the potential to cause severe injuries and even death to the occupants of these brand new vehicles touted to be the most technologically advanced vehicles on the market today.

As experienced product liability attorneys with over 30 years of experience representing catastrophically injured consumers, we take no joy in the troubles that have befallen Toyota, a company that prided itself as a manufacturer of the highest quality vehicles available. Nevertheless, we recognize that this latest problem constitutes a major threat to the health and safety of our clients. If you purchased a Prius or Lexus after April 2009, you should immediately contact your dealer for details on getting this problem fixed.

Continue reading "Toyota’s Newest Problem: Faulty Prius Brakes" »

By now, most people are aware of the recently publicized problems facing owners of Toyota and Lexus vehicles involving sudden unintended acceleration and brake problems. We at Reiff & Bily have recently become aware of new recalls involving 950,000 Honda vehicles involving faulty air bags. Additionally, U.S. regulators are now looking into reports of potential problems involving newer models of Toyota Corollas.

The experienced product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily have over 30 years of experience representing people who suffered catastrophic injuries or deaths of family members due to defective motor vehicles. As an experienced airbag defect lawyer, I can state that airbags save many lives in car accidents. Recently I obtained a substantial settlement for a young woman who lost her eye due to a faulty airbag.

At Reiff & Bily, we have knowledgeable experts from around the country and we are not afraid to take on the major auto companies. Time after time, we have found that the auto companies put profits ahead of safety.

In a letter from the United States Congress Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent to Mr. Yoshimi Inaba as part of their investigation into Toyota’s handling of vehicle recalls arising from incidents of sudden acceleration, it was revealed that Toyota deliberately withheld relevant electronic records that it was legally required to produce in rollover litigation. Many of these documents concerned rollover cases where the plaintiff was injured or killed. The letter also goes on to note that Mr. Dimitrious Biller, who is managing counsel of the product liability group of Toyota Motor Sales and in a very senior position in which he lead the defense of some of the largest tort cases against Toyota, particularly rollover cases involving seriously injured victims, did not produce all of the requested documents during the litigation process. Biller was concerned with Toyota’s failure to produce electronic documents in litigation. The documents also indicate that Mr. Biller was concerned that Toyota’s interactions with NHTSA would be discovered. Finally the Biller documents shined light on Toyota’s handling of the sudden, unintended acceleration problem.

In summary, the Biller documents and Toyota documents indicate a systematic disregard for the law and a routine violation of court discovery orders in litigation. People injured in crashes involving Toyota vehicles may have been injured a second time when Toyota failed to produce relevant evidence to the court. This also raises very serious questions as to whether Toyota has withheld substantial relevant information from NHTSA.

As experienced product liability lawyers, we have been well aware of Toyota's posturing for many years and their refusal to play fair in the litigation process. We are currently investigating a number of Toyota airbag and sudden acceleration claims.

As automobile manufacturer Toyota has profitability in the billions, recent recalls and their failure to act sooner to issue recalls indicate that they have emphasized profits over consumer safety. Recently Toyota announced a massive recall due to faulty acceleration. However, it has now also surfaced that officials in the United States and Japan are looking into additional complaints regarding a brake system which has also failed.

As an experienced Philadelphia vehicle defect lawyer, I have been aware of defect problems with Toyotas for many years and feel that Toyota has been less than forthcoming about problems with their cars putting its customers at risk for substantial injuries or death. Unfortunately in many past legal cases Toyota was adamant about having litigants sign confidentiality agreements in an attempt to put a hamper on negative publicity concerning their product.

The Philadelphia vehicle defect and product liability law firm of Reiff & Bily has a successful track record representing individuals who are harmed or killed due to dangerous defective products with a focus on the automotive industry. Consumers have a right to expect that when they purchase an automobile it is safe.

If you or a loved one has suffered catastrophic injuries or death resulting from the use of a Toyota, please contact one of our experienced Philadelphia car accident and vehicle defect lawyers for a free, no obligation consultation at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com. Reiff & Bily has been committed to consumer safety since 1979.

According to U.S. Recall News, vehicle manufacturers announce 43 recall campaigns involving the risk of injury or death in January alone. The vehicles concerned range from passenger cars, motorcycles, RVs and buses. The vehicle defect lawyers at Reiff & Bily have been busier than ever fielding phone calls from consumers concerned about their safety due to the risk of crash and resulting injuries or death.

If you or a loved one has sustained a serious injury or death due to a vehicle defect, the experienced Pennsylvania product liability law firm of Reiff & Bily is offering a free consultation to discuss your rights and help you to further investigate the problem.

Since 1979, I have successfully represented injured consumers against major automobile manufacturers on behalf of clients who sustained catastrophic injuries or fatalities as a result of defectively designed cars. Unbelievably, there is not a single government group that has responsibility for assuring the public that cars and trucks are safe similar to the situation as it exists with the Food and Drug Administration or the FAA who extensively test products before they hit the market.

In the last month, Toyota has recalled in excess of 8.5 million cars and evidence reveals that Toyota was well aware of numerous defects in these vehicles for many years as was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. As a matter of fact, State Farm Insurance Company noted that it warned the federal government about a disturbing trend of vehicle caused accidents involving Toyota Motor Corporation as far back as 2007. The insurer stated that it contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in late 2007 and had been in touch with a regulator an unspecified number of times since then.

Last summer a former Toyota lawyer alleged that Toyota had concealed evidence from courts and from the government in a systematic and ruthless fashion. Toyota’s marketing experts were quite adept at portraying an image of integrity and social conscious with the Prius. Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words and perhaps once and for all the concerted efforts of trial lawyers and the outrage of consumers will be enough to generate support for true and realistic safety regulation in the automobile industry.

This experienced automobile defect lawyer who has fought for clients who have sustained catastrophic injuries or fatalities for many years would like to see a system where vehicles have to pass regular safety tests prior to entering the marketplace and have their designs examined by government regulators with teeth similar to the FDA prior to entry to the marketplace. The car is no different than a new drug being introduced to market for the safety of precious lives.

As an experienced Philadelphia airbag defect lawyer, I receive many calls each year from people whose airbags failed to aggressively deploy or for some other malfunction. Two days ago, I received a call from a client whose airbag deployed in an improper fashion yet she did not sustain an injury serious enough for us to warrant taking her case. At that point, she was more interested in having the airbags replaced on the secondary market due to the fact that she could not afford to take her car back to the dealer for a proper and more costly repair. She discussed with me the possibility of buying airbags or airbag parts on eBay and having a mechanic friend of hers install them.

Curiously, I went to eBay looking up parts and accessories concerning airbags and saw that I could buy a pair of airbags for $39.99. Quite a considerable difference from the manufacturer’s retail price. What concerned me most was the fact that if an airbag was not installed correctly or by a qualified installer, the passengers would be subjected to risks of catastrophic injuries including death. For a used airbag to operate properly, a qualified installer must install the used airbag in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer’s specifications. Noticeably, there was a disclaimer on the site of the airbag seller that stated “the installer of a used airbag must test whether the used airbag will function properly. The purchaser of a used airbag from the seller agrees to accept all risks of damages or injuries including death relating to the use of a used airbag.”

As an experienced airbag defect lawyer, I can state that airbags save many lives in car accidents and I would strongly advise against anyone purchasing a used airbag over the web and having a neighborhood mechanic install them without properly investigating the situation. Safety and injury prevention is of paramount importance and airbag installation requires expertise. One should never shortcut on their health or safety.

For many years the experienced automotive product liability lawyers at the Philadelphia-based law firm of Reiff & Bily have successfully investigated and litigated many cases against most of the world’s major automobile manufacturers. As an automotive product liability lawyer familiar with many of the defects in automobiles which cause catastrophic injuries and death, I am often consulted by clients and friends of clients requesting which is the safest car and which company has the most integrity. For years, the Prius was one of the benchmarks of “anti-status” automobile manufacturer integrity. When one thought of Prius, we thought of an automobile manufacturer with a conscious and who had integrity with regard to protecting the environment and an eye looking forward to the future. If one goes to Toyota’s website, it is noted “Toyota’s integrity, passion, and innovation extend beyond their vehicle manufacturing. We also believe in helping people improve the quality of their life and their communities.”

Recently Toyota has been on the offensive noting that the Los Angeles Times published an article that wrongly and unfairly attacks Toyota’s integrity and reputation. While everyone has been quick to point the finger at Toyota’s spiraling problems, trial lawyers, as well as U.S. regulators, have been aware of Toyota’s dragging its feet on safety issues as well as fixing defective gas pedals. While Toyota initially came out and stated that the acceleration problem was due to faulty safety mats, this experienced automotive safety product liability lawyer will state that it’s simply not just about the floor mats. Recently, in August of last year, a former managing counsel for Toyota filed a lawsuit against Toyota alleging that Toyota destroyed evidence in hundreds of automobile product liability lawsuits. The lawsuit claims that Toyota destroyed evidence in a ruthless conspiracy to keep the information secret. So much for integrity.

Reiff & Bily is currently investigating cases of sudden unintended acceleration affecting a large number of Toyota cases. Reiff & Bily investigators and attorneys clearly dispute the argument that this problem was entirely linked to floor mats. Last evening Toyota announced a recall of the Prius for alleged faulty braking issues. With all of the recent recalls and confusion owners of affected Toyotas must consider whether or not the manufacturer is really as trustworthy and full of integrity as they advertise and would like you to believe.

Chrysler and The Office of Defects Investigation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that more than 24,000 late model Chrysler and Dodge vehicles are being recalled in order to repair a defective or missing part that could possibly result in unexpected brake failure. The vehicles involved in this recall includes some 2010 models of Chrysler Sebring, Dodge Avenger, Dodge Nitro, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Commander, and Jeep Grand Cherokee. Dodge Ram trucks manufactured in 2009 and 2010 are also included in the recall.

The recall stems from a potentially faulty brake booster rod retaining clip and Chrysler noted that some of the vehicles may have even been built without the clip. The brake booster retaining clip is part of the brake hydraulic system and is essential to brake function as it maintains consistency in performance. Without the clip, as factory workers in Mexico and Toledo witnessed, the brakes could completely lose power. The result would be a full speed accident with catastrophic consequences. The Mexican workers watched as a Dodge Ram heavy duty completely lost its brake power during testing. Workers in Toledo also discovered malformed clips in Nitro and Liberty models being manufactured in their plant.

Chrysler has indicated that it will install or replace the retaining clip free as the safety recall will begin. Consumers can contact the National Highway Safety Administration’s vehicle safety hotline at 888-327-4236 or visit www.safercar.gov for more information.

As an experienced Philadelphia car accident and products liability lawyer since 1979, I see many cases where an inexperienced lawyer goes for the “easy A” and settles a potentially large personal injury case while failing to recognize other avenues and theories of recovery. Commonly in serious car accident cases there is often an element of defective product design or product failure involved such as a seat back failure, seat belt failure, or airbag failure. Each year these types of product defects lead to serious and catastrophic injuries by thousands of Americans. Although a governmental agency known as NHTSA is supposed to be addressing these problems, I find that they drag their feet and are not as aggressive as they should be.

Recently the Los Angeles Times published an article entitled “Auto Safety Agency Labors To Keep Pace” noting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has looked into forcing automakers to build stronger seats and considered new rules in the 1990s but declined to issue them due to automakers’ objections that the matter needed more study. In 2004 the agency formally shelved the issue. The largest fine ever issued by NHTSA for a seat back defect was $1 million dollars which is small change for auto manufacturers with billions of dollars in annual sales.

Despite NHTSA investigating sudden acceleration problems involving Toyota and Lexus motor vehicles since 2003, the problem persisted, ultimately leading to a massive 4.2 million vehicle recall that was initiated by the automaker in the hopes of putting the matter to rest.

If you or a loved one have been involved in a serious car accident, it pays to seek an experienced lawyer familiar with not only simple automobile crashes but also with the complexities of automotive product liability litigation. For a free no obligation consultation, please contact one of our experienced Philadelphia car accident lawyers at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

Harley Davidson informed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that they discovered a product defect that could affect 111,600 motorcycles being recalled for consumer safety according to a notice posted on December 11, 2009. Harley Davidson is recalling the 2009/2010 Touring, CVO and Trike Motorcycles due to a hazard where fuel tanks may leak after a crash causing fire, injuries or fatalities.

Also on the subject of potential fuel leak hazards, Subaru announced a recall of 5,700 of its 2002/2003 Impreza WRX models due to potential fuel tank hazards which could cause a fire under extremely cold temperatures according to the safety organization. Subaru had received close to a 1,000 complaints from consumers who reported a fuel leak or the smell of gas, as well as a report of fire.

If you own any of the vehicles involved, you are well advised to take your vehicle to a Harley Davidson or Subaru dealership for the recall. The Philadelphia product liability law firm of Reiff & Bily specializes in cases involving catastrophic injuries and fatalities involving defective motor vehicles and the integrity of their fuel systems.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of the same, please contact one of our experienced defective product lawyers for a free consultation at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is questioning why Honda and the Takata Corporation, the airbag supplier to Honda, did not include vehicles from a second recall in an earlier recall concerning airbag defects eight months before. The initial recall centered on a problematic airbag deployment according to a Honda spokesperson. This recall in November 2008 involved 3,940 Accords and Civics from the 2001 model year. Yet recently Honda recalled 440,000 Accord and Civic vehicles for a potential lethal airbag defect. The second recall was expanded in July to include 2002 Accord and Acura vehicles due to the fact that the airbag inflator was rupturing from too much pressure, sending metal fragments from the airbag into vehicle occupants, resulting in multiple injuries and death.

The experienced airbag defect lawyers at Reiff & Bily recently completed another case involving a similar defect with another automobile manufacturer causing the driver to lose her vision. As defective airbag lawyers with concern for consumer safety and knowledge of the automobile industry, we are somewhat concerned that Honda allowed these potentially unsafe vehicles to remain on the highway, putting profitability over the safety concerns of its consumers.

For more information please visit the NHTSA website at www.nhtsa.gov or visit www.safercar.gov for the latest recalls and defect investigations.

Normal force of an airbag deployment is over 200 miles per hour. Many times airbags deploy at a greater velocity and often deploy late. Frequently this is a failure of the airbag sensor or other components involved in the deployment of the bag. Recently we completed a car accident case involving an over-aggressive and late airbag deployment causing the phenomena known as “bag slap” which resulted in the loss of an eye of our client despite a minimal impact. When we think of airbags, we normally do not consider the case of individuals getting killed or seriously injured. However, due to defective airbags, many times catastrophic injuries and fatalities occur.

Reiff & Bily has had experience litigating defective airbag cases involving non-deployment, late deployment, and over-aggressive deployment. If you or a loved one has suffered from a serious or catastrophic injury, or a wrongful death due to a defective airbag, please contact one of our experienced car accident and product liability lawyers at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

In another verdict against Ford Motor Company on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 a jury awarded $8.5 million dollars after a 4 1/2 week product liability trial. The lawsuit was filed in 2005 alleging that the Mercury Mountaineer SUV was unstable and prone to roll over. The 22-year old passenger (victim) was ejected from the vehicle during a rollover and as a result sustained brain damage, broken bones, a collapsed lung, a fractured skull, paralysis to her left arm and hand, and a right leg amputation. The trial lawyers contended that Ford Motor Company negligently designed, manufactured, produced, and distributed the Mercury Mountaineer which caused the accident.

The Mercury Mountaineer was alleged to be inherently defective and dangerous as the model does not possess sufficient stability to prevent it from rolling over on its side and roof. Allegations were made at the trial that Ford Motor Company was aware of this defect but failed to make adequate corrections. Trial attorney Willie Gary stated that Ford Motor Company took a calculated risk by manufacturing defective vehicles.

We salute the efforts of Willie Gary as well as other attorneys in the fight against Ford Motor Company and other motor companies who continue to place unsafe vehicles on the road knowing that they are dangerous, selecting profits over safety and seemingly making calculated decisions to take their risks in the courts.

Under the bankruptcy plans that were approved for Chrysler and GM, thousands of American consumers with pending claims against these companies alleging that the design, manufacturing, and product defects in their cars caused their wrongful death or catastrophic injury will be forced to bring their claims to the bankruptcy courts.

Under the bankruptcy plan for Chrysler, all consumers who purchased Chrysler vehicles before Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy will likewise be relegated to bring claims in bankruptcy court if a defect in one of those vehicles caused a catastrophic injury or death. There are approximately 30 million Chrysler vehicles currently on the road that were purchased before the new Chrysler was established.

New GM on the other hand has accepted responsibility for injuries or deaths caused by defects in old GM vehicles as long as those claims were not pending before the new GM emerged from bankruptcy. That means that Chrysler is the only car company in America that will not stand behind the safety of its vehicles. There will be virtually no money in the bankruptcy court to pay any sums to tort claimants who have cases against Chrysler, LLC and only a small sum available to tort claimants against General Motors Corporation.

Continue reading "Pending Death And Injury Claims Against Chrysler and GM Result In Inequities" »

According to the Chrysler bankruptcy plan, families driving any Chrysler now on the road (approximately 10,000,000 vehicles), whose occupants are severely injured in a collision or because the car was not made safely, will have no recourse for damages against the old bankrupt Chrysler or the new successor company. The GM bankruptcy proposes the same result. There are approximately 30,000,000 GM vehicles on the road.

The Center For Justice and Democracy has stated that these results represent a cruel abandonment of catastrophically injured victims and that they are completely avoidable during any bankruptcy and also that in bankruptcy most injured victims are not regularly discarded especially when there are known products on the market that will continue to severely harm or kill people.

The Philadelphia automotive product liability lawyers at Reiff & Bily strongly feel that the actions of the government in allowing this situation to exist will deprive hundreds of thousands of people who have been injured and have lost their sole means of support the opportunity to have their day in court. Consumers in pending suits are not the only people who will be affected if the companies are shielded against product liability. Future liability lawsuits will also be barred against Chrysler and GM for vehicles sold before the companies’ reorganization.

If the automobile manufacturers are not held liable for the known defects, which have catastrophically injured as well as killed many innocent victims, they will literally be getting away with murder.

In the last few weeks, two major U.S. automobile manufacturers filed for bankruptcy protection, namely GM and Chrysler. Last week Federal Bankruptcy Court stated that product liability suits against the “old Chrysler” be wiped out as the new company would have no further responsibility for injury and wrongful death claims linked to automotive defects and product liability on cars sold by the “old Chrysler.”

Since 1979, the Philadelphia product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily have represented individuals and the families of individuals who have been killed and catastrophically injured as a result of design defects of automobiles produced by these manufacturers. I had first hand experiences with families who have lost their sole means of support or with individuals who require life time medical treatment who now potentially have the inability to collect monetary compensation and are unable to sustain themselves or pay for necessary medical treatment. We have been able to successfully prove in the past that all of the major automobile manufacturers were aware of various and numerous risks associated with these design defects and although a cheap fix was available many times the manufacturers put profits over consumer safety. We have interviewed ex-employees from the manufacturers who have come forward to express the knowledge that many of the vehicles on the road today are unsafe for real world conditions. It is estimated that the Chrysler Corporation currently faces approximately $600,000,000 in liability claims which are in jeopardy. My understanding is that the new corporation has agreed to honor consumer rights such as warranty and lemon law claims. They will have no further responsibility for injury and wrongful death claims linked to product liability defects in cars sold by the old company.

The consumer safety and product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily join with other trial lawyers in the United States to fight for the rights of injured consumers and seek compensation for the victims who deserve it the most.

Nissan Motor Company has recalled thousands of Frontier Pathfinders and Xtera vehicles from the 2005 to 2009 model years to replace potentially defective airbag sensors that are vulnerable to damage from winter weather and road salt. More than 240,000 SUVs and trucks were recalled to fix the problem that could prevent the airbags from deploying in a crash.

In states where winter time salt is used, the mixture of snow, water and salt can enter the crash zone sensor and cause rust, interrupting the signal and preventing the airbags from deploying. Nissan says that the recall involves 242,720 vehicles sold in 20 states, including SUVs and trucks sold in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The Philadelphia product liability and airbag defect law firm of Reiff & Bily has handled many defective airbag cases involving defective sensors. During a car accident, airbags should deploy automatically to cushion the driver and passengers to reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury. Unfortunately, as we have to often seen, airbags can malfunction. In fact, we are currently working on a similar case involving a Nissan vehicle resulting in a life changing catastrophic injury.

If you have been injured in a car accident as a result of a defective airbag, please contact one of the experienced defective airbag lawyers at Reiff & Bily at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com for a free consultation. We have the knowledge and experience in investigating and prove your airbag injury case. We represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and the United States.

A press release issued by Mercury Insurance Group on September 16, 2008 presents five excellent safety tips for parents faced with the challenge of choosing the first car for their teens. The suggestion from the Mercury Insurance Group focus on safety, which also helps to lower the cost of auto insurance. The personal injury and automotive safety and vehicle defect lawyers at the Pennsylvania personal injury law firm of Reiff & Bily salute Mercury Insurance Company for their suggestions and promulgation of automobile safety.

According to the Mercury Insurance Group press release, new teens spend countless hours dreaming of owning their first car. A fast sports car conjures exciting images, while an SUV has ample room for all of their friends and both vehicles have one thing in common, neither is a good choice for teens.

Mercury suggests setting ground rules that may ease the polarized view points shared by parents and their teens.

Tip 1: Watch the speed. Driving fast cars with turbo chargers and high horse power continue significant risk. Since car accidents are the leading cause of death among 15 to 20 year olds, 1/3 of those accidents are attributable to speeding. Any fast car is an unwise choice. A good choice is a vehicle with a 4 cylinder engine and an average horsepower which costs less to insure and may save lives.

Continue reading "THE MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP PROMULGATES FIVE TIPS DESIGNED TO PROTECT YOUNG DRIVERS TO FOCUS ON SAFETY ALSO HELPS TO LOWER THE COST OF AUTO INSURANCE" »

Getting in a car accident is dangerous enough without having to worry about the possibility of your car being engulfed in flames due to a design defect. Fuel-fed car fires are a real danger and often do more harm than the actual crash. The Pennsylvania fuel-fed fire lawyers at the Philadelphia law firm of Reiff & Bily have been researching and handling numerous automobile related injury cases since 1979.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reports that during 2004, fire departments responded to an estimated 266,500 highway-type vehicle fires. These fires claimed 520 lives and caused $969 million in direct property damage.

The Ford Pinto is a prime example of how a defect can result in fatalities. The defect was in the design of the strap on gas tank that made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. Not only did Ford know of the defect and the possibility of a fuel-fed fire, but they continued to market the Pinto. Innocent lives were lost because Ford marketed a dangerous design. Ford ended up recalling the Pintos and tried to make them safer. Additional information on the Pinto recall is available.

Continue reading "Fuel-Fed Auto Fires" »

Over the years, airbags have become a mandatory safety device in all new cars. There is no question that along with using a seat belt, many lives have been saved due to airbags. Airbags are meant to prevent the occupant's head from striking a part of the vehicle and spread the force of the impact across their body. Due to the speed of airbag deployment and the chemicals used, there is always the possibility that airbags do more harm than good. Believe it or not, airbags often do not operate properly causing serious injury and deaths that could have easily been prevented. Philadelphia product liability lawyer Jeffrey Reiff and the experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyers at Reiff & Bily have been researching and handling automotive and defective airbag cases for many years.

Airbags were developed in the 1950’s, but it was not until the 1980’s that airbags became mandatory in new cars. The driver’s airbag is found within the steering wheel, which protects the driver from hitting the wheel or dashboard. During an auto accident, four collisions may occur: (1) between the vehicle and the other object; (2) between the occupants (restrained or unrestrained) and the interior of the vehicle; (3) between the occupants’ organs and the enclosing body wall or cavity (such as the brain and skull); and (4) between occupant(s) and any loose objects in the vehicle.

Airbags and seatbelts are meant to protect collisions between the occupant(s) and the interior of the car. Airbags work when the car decelerates very quickly, as during a collision, and a sensor triggers a chemical reaction that produces a non-toxic gas that inflates the airbag. When the airbag deflates, dust and gasses are released into the car. These gasses and dust can cause asthma, chemical injuries (burns), or other irritations and breathing problems. The entire process of inflating and deflating the airbag takes less than a second.

Airbags need to react extremely fast to a collision, especially if an occupant is not wearing a seat belt. Airbags can deploy at over 200 MPH to protect an unrestrained occupant. Since airbags have to deploy so fast, injuries could occur from the extreme speed at which the airbag inflates. Injuries can occur to the eyes, head, chest, or limbs and could result in scaring, paralysis, blindness, loss of hearing, broken bones, severance of a body part, or even death.

Continue reading "Airbags: Possible Injury in Preventative Safety" »

There is nothing quite like taking a short trip to the grocery store and coming back to your car engulfed in flames. It could even happen in your own driveway or garage, day or night. It is being reported by AutoWeek Magazine that Ford is still having some cruise control fire-causing issues. Ford has recalled almost twelve million vehicles since 1999 to repair the fire-prone defective cruise control system and recently reiterated the recall of 9.6 million cars and trucks on its web site. It is reported by the Detroit News that Federal regulators are looking into 130 complaints that fires occurred in the engine compartments of Ford Windstar mid-size vans from the 1995-2003 model years. The fires can occur either during use or while parked.

Continue reading "The Hidden Danger of Fire May Be Lurking in Your Automobile" »