• The GM ignition switch was faulty;
• This defect rendered vehicles unreasonably unsafe;
• GM failed to provide adequate warning of this dangerous defect;
• This defect did NOT cause the New Orleans crash that injured two plaintiffs.

The outcome was both good news and bad news. The bad news is that for this particular plaintiff, she did not prevail in the assertion that the auto manufacturer was liable to pay her damages. However, for future cases, the finding that the ignition switch defect created an unreasonable danger and the company failed to warn about it was significant.

This was the second bellwether case on this issue, and it was one that was closely watched after the first was abruptly dismissed following allegations that the victim was dishonest on the witness stand.

In this case, the company insisted this particular car accident, which occurred on an icy bridge on New Orleans, was no different than 30 other crashes that happened in that same area that same night: attributable to the icy, slippery conditions of the road, not the ignition switch defect.

“(The accident) was caused by the driver losing control on an icy bridge during a state-wide winter weather emergency,” a company spokesperson wrote in a statement.

As far as the finding that the switch was defective, that had already been established by the fact that the company has recalled some 30 million vehicles in the last two years – with about 2.5 million of those directly related to the ignition switch. The firm claims to have fixed the problem, which is blamed for at least 124 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

So far, it has paid out $870 million in order to settle personal injury and wrongful death claims, and it’s also paid the U.S. government $900 million in order to resolve a criminal investigation.

The question now is how much the company will need to pay in order to resolve the remaining federal and state lawsuits. This second bellwether case suggests the company isn’t going to walk away without paying anything, but plaintiffs may have to work harder to prove liability. That’s going to mean more of them will likely accept a lower settlement than they might have previously anticipated.

Still, plaintiff attorney characterized the outcome as a, “victory for consumers” because it solidified the argument that GM failed to use reasonable care.

The jury verdict was handed down in New York following a two-week trial that involved two plaintiffs who said they were injured in the case. The first plaintiff was the driver and the second the passenger, and both reportedly suffered injuries when the driver lost control of the car. She alleged the loss of control was due to the ignition switch defect, which could cause the ignition to shut off mid-ride when the keys are only slightly jostled.

There are 200 pending lawsuits against the company for various defects, including the ignition switch.

This was the second of six bellwether cases – with three chosen by plaintiffs and three by the defense.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Bell Tolls for Car Owners in GM Ignition Suits, March 30, 2016, By Paul Barrett, Bloomberg.com

More Blog Entries:

Another Wave of Airbag Recalls Affects 5 Million Vehicles, Feb. 21, 2016, Miami Car Accident Attorney Blog

U.S. Senators Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said that the recent settlement between the U.S. Justice Department and General Motors (GM) showed that stronger legislation is needed. After it was revealed that GM covered up a deadly ignition switch defect, the company agreed to pay $900 million and offer settlements to nearly 300 people who were injured and the families of 124 people who were killed as a result of the faulty switches, which caused vehicles to lose power while in motion. No criminal charges were brought against any GM employees.

The proposed legislation would make it a crime for an officer of a corporation to knowingly conceal information about an action or product that could put workers or the public a risk of serious injury or death. Under the proposed law, violators would face fines and up to five years in prison.

Sen. Blumenthal said that current law does not go far enough in holding corporate officials accountable when they are complicit in cover-ups that cause preventable tragedies. The bill, called the Hide No Harm Act, would also apply to other products, such as defective cribs and body armor, that have caused injuries.

If you need to speak with a auto accident lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

The new count includes at least six more deaths and four more injuries that GM has not acknowledged. And the independent administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, says that the number is likely to rise.

As Feinberg told the PBS NewsHour, the main reason is that the independent compensation program uses a less strict standard to evaluate claims. For example, the program includes the claims of injured or killed parties other than the driver, such as passengers or pedestrians. Also, the program does not deny claims if a secondary factor, such as speeding, contributed to the death or injury.

According to CBS News, these findings have raised major criticism aimed at GM. Some claim that this shows that GM has sought to avoid taking total responsibility for the damage caused by the faulty ignition switch. Other critics assert that the independent compensation program itself will not be able to uncover the true extent of the damage because key makes and models were excluded from consideration by the fund.

The compensation program began accepting applications this summer, and it will continue to accept applications until December 31 of this year.

Contact a personal injury lawyer the James Law Group at 636.397.2411.

The bill was introduced by Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. It may have little chance of passing this year, but the proposed legislation is seen as a response to car safety violations that have led to deaths. GM has been a particular target after a defective ignition switch on recalled vehicles was linked to at least 13 deaths. 

Sen. McCaskill called GM executives before a Senate committee on two occasions earlier this year to question them about the recall. GM engineers allegedly attempted to cover up the defect by changing a part without changing the part number. Investigators working for personal injury attorneys uncovered the change.

The proposed legislation, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Enhancement Act, would raise penalties for car safety violations from $5,000 to $25,000 per violation. It would eliminate the current cap on penalties at $35 million. In addition, under the bill, federal prosecutors could seek sentences of up to life in prison for those involved with safety violations that cause death.

If you need to speak with a auto accident lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

Multiple ongoing investigations, including a federal criminal probe, are asking whether the company intentionally concealed the problem and, if so, how long executives knew about it. GM acknowledges that engineers proposed a fix in 2004 and 2005, but the company says upper management only became aware of the problem last year.

Now, some victims and their families want prosecutors to go after the individuals at the company responsible for the delays and alleged coverups. The Associated Press quoted Leo Ruddy, whose daughter died in a recalled Chevrolet Cobalt, saying that prison sentences are the only way to protect the public from corporate negligence.

But it is far more common for corporations as a whole, not individual decision-makers, to be held responsible for wrongdoings. In March, the Justice Department closed a years-long investigation into problems of unintended acceleration in some Toyota cars without filing charges against any individuals at the company. Instead, the company agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle allegations of improper handling of the problem, which was linked to scores of deaths.

Sending an individual to prison requires proving his or her personal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Resolving a charge against a company usually involves an agreement to settle, a much easier task.

Individual prosecutions would probably strike fear in the hearts of corporate executives who might be tempted to cover up product defects. But regardless of the outcome of the GM case, victims and their families can seek compensation for their losses by filing suit against the company.

By Richard LaGarde

The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) conducted a study of insurance claims on vehicles due to fires unrelated to crashes. The vehicles were divided into two categories: a group of those for which a recall was issued due to fire-related defects, and the control group, for which no such recalls were issued.

As you would expect, the study showed a significantly higher rate of fire-related insurance claims on the defective vehicles. During the time period before the recall was issued, claims on defective vehicles were 23 percent higher than non-defective vehicles. But, importantly, that gap shrank to 12 percent in the time following the issuance of the recall.

The study demonstrates that issuing a recall makes a significant difference in the rate of defect-related damage – in this case, it was cut in half. But it also shows that aggregate risk remains elevated even after the recall. An exact conclusion on this second point was beyond the scope of the study, but researchers reasonably theorized that some vehicle owners were unaware of the recall or failed to comply with it.

Auto owners can check for recalls on their cars by going to safecar.gov.

The biggest vehicle recall of the moment has been issued by General Motors. GM has recalled some 6 million cars of various models for faulty ignition switches and power steering. GM itself has linked the faulty ignitions with 13 deaths and 31 crashes. Some claim the number is higher.

The ignition switch may cause the engine to suddenly shut off while driving, which also prevents the airbags from inflating if the car then crashes. A crash is quite likely; many drivers are startled and confused when their vehicles suddenly turn off for no reason.

GM has issued urgent guidance to owners of the recalled vehicles. Owners should, of course, take their cars to GM service stations as soon as possible. But if they must drive in the meantime, they should drive with nothing extra hanging from the vehicle’s key – no extra keys or key fobs. Apparently, the weight of larger keychains pulling down on the key makes the defective ignition more likely to malfunction.

Recalls are almost always free of charge. Do your part to make driving safer – look for and heed vehicle recalls.

If you need to speak with a auto accident lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

According to the information released when this wrongful death lawsuit was filed, General Motors knew about an issue involving faulty ignition switches in some of its vehicles. Such a switch allegedly caused the death of 32-year-old Aubrey Williams in December 2013. Williams was driving on Alabama Highway 64 when the ignition switch failed. Her Cobalt lost power and veered into the westbound lane, where it collided with an 18-wheeler. Her airbag did not deploy.

Williams’ father filed the wrongful death lawsuit, naming several defendants, including General Motors, the ignition switch manufacturer, the auto dealership where she bought the car and the repair shop where she had her vehicle serviced. 

In light of multiple accidents caused by this defective switch, GM recalled 1.6 million vehicles, indicating that the defective switch could cause sudden loss of steering, braking and engine power. Despite the recall, the U.S. Department of Justice is launching a criminal investigation, and hundreds of Americans are filing lawsuits.

After the accident investigation was concluded, the police allegedly became aware of the recall and the faulty ignition switch. Their accident report was changed to name mechanical failure as the cause of the crash. 

According to the family attorney, GM knew about this issue for more than ten years before taking action. More than 300 deaths may be attributed to this particular switch. Currently, GM has admitted that the switch issue caused 12 of these deaths. In filing a wrongful death lawsuit, the family may be able to send the giant automaker a message. It is unacceptable, egregious and negligent to leave known errors unresolved before marketing their vehicles to an unsuspecting and trusting public. 

This lawsuit is likely to take a long time moving through the courts, and the family may face too many financial issues to cope with their bills. Litigation funding, also referred to as lawsuit loans or pre-settlement funding, would be a strong solution to their economic dilemma.

Plaintiffs with a winnable case may call a lawsuit loan company once they have hired an attorney. They will be asked to outline the case details and wait for approval. Once an applicant is approved, interim litigation funding is sent directly to the applicant’s bank account within 48 hours. Once there, the funds may be used to pay bills, including funeral and burial costs. In this case, Williams left behind two small children. Any monies obtained through a lawsuit loan could also help the family care for them.
Litigation funding is often crucial for cash-poor plaintiffs. Though such funding may not suit everyone, it can help many hang on until a settlement or trial is reached.

Daren Monroe writes for Litigation Funding Corp. To learn more about lawsuit funding and litigation funding, visit http://www.litigationfundingcorp.com/.

Honda is introducing two new safety systems that alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians and motorcyclists using signals emitted by their mobile phones. The systems use Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC), the same type of technology currently used to collect some highway tolls and planned for future vehicle-to-vehicle safety systems.

When an approaching pedestrian is sensed by the system, which uses the GPS from the pedestrian’s phone, a warning sounds in the car and an alert is sent to the pedestrian’s phone. The car warning even lets the driver know whether the pedestrian is on the phone, texting or listening to music, which strikes some critics as invasive and unnecessary.

In the case of motorcyclists, a warning sounds in the vehicle but no alert is sent to the motorcyclist’s phone. The system could help warn drivers of pedestrians and motorcyclists who are hidden from view, for example a pedestrian who is about to step out from between two parked cars.

When the system senses a pedestrian or motorcyclist, it calculates the risk of a collision. If a risk is detected, then alarms sound in the vehicle and a display flashes reading “brake.” The pedestrian’s cell phone gets a message reading “watch out” and a honking sound.

The system is similar to one unveiled by General Motors last year, except that the GM system uses WiFi Direct to detect pedestrians, rather than DSRC.

Both systems have obstacles to overcome before they will be widely useful. In the case of GM’s system, most cell phones are equipped with WiFi Direct, but if users do not download GM’s app, they will not be detected by GM cars. In Honda’s case, DSRC is not usually found in cell phones, so the automaker would have to convince manufacturers to include the technology in future handsets.

Of course, neither system does anything to protect a pedestrian or motorcyclist who is not carrying a cell phone.

The new technologies are still in the experimental phase, and are part of a wave of advances focusing on so-called active safety, such as warnings of collisions ahead of the driver or lane-departure warnings. Honda sees the wireless technologies as a feature that could become widely available in vehicles, in contrast to built-in sensors and backup cameras that are only available on higher-end models.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago personal injury attorney and lawyer with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.