California personal injury attorneys have filed a product liability wrongful death suit against Subaru of America. The suit alleges that the 2001 Subaru Forester — in particular, the vehicle’s restraint system — failed to properly protect Lisa Ann Thayer in a 2006 accident. Thayer was thrown from the vehicle and suffered horrific, ultimately life-ending injuries.

The suit was brought through Thayer’s daughter, Emma, and Emma’s father, Gregory Jones. Specifically, they allege that the vehicle had a number of deficiencies that ultimately contributed to Thayer’s death as well as injuries sustained by Emma who was also a passenger in the car. They focus on the restraint system for much of the argument but, in addition, stress that the vehicle had improper window structures, insufficient strength in a rollover accident, and insufficient structural integrity to resist a catastrophic roof impact. They further assert that Subaru and its parent companies knew about the defects and failed to either warn the public or correct the problem.

Ms. Thayer’s accident was in October 2006, about three-and-a-half years ago, and one unfortunate aspect of a case such as this is the sheer amount of time involved. Years often pass in the course of personal injury or class action cases. Investigations have to be pursued, motions filed and witnesses interviewed; paperwork gets shuffled, companies wall up behind lawyers, and victims struggle for years hoping for rulings.

With no easy answers and few quick results, it’s advisable that people make efforts to protect themselves by taking note of their rights and recording any safety concerns they have about products. Additionally, personal injury advocates exist to help people make sense of the chaos and headache that comes in the wake of a tragic event. Given the knowledge that such cases often drag on for years, strong representation is also a top priority.

The right to sue is a tricky one that must always receive proper consideration. It is not a simple issue; there are extraordinary costs involved in any lawsuit that goes beyond small claims, including attorney’s fees, court costs, the cost of investigations and research, and many others. Any lawsuit, regardless of whether the court deems it frivolous, is an exceedingly serious undertaking.

On one hand, it is important that lawsuits do not waste society’s time and money. Few people benefit from lawsuits such as that of the infamous criminal who filed for injury claims against the homeowner whose residence he’d broken into. These suits take up time and money without merit, and there is a legitimate need to be sure these cases are not crowding out genuine ones.

On the other hand, people must have the right to bring lawsuits forward when they genuinely believe their interests have been harmed. Apologies and explanations are nice, but when negligence or incompetence cause serious harm, the costs can be high and people need recourse to protect themselves and those they love.

These issues and more are at stake in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz. Bruesewitz developed mental impairments after receiving a vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. Her parents have been working through the court system, attempting to receive leave to file a pharmaceutical negligence suit against the makers of the vaccine, the pharmaceutical lab Wyeth. Thus far their efforts have been denied, and the case has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices of the Supreme Court have agreed to consider the case. Hearings are expected to begin this fall.

The case is complex. Wyeth pulled the vaccine from the market in 1998, but two tiers of courts have rejected the appeal already. Neither side has a definitive claim that makes the case clear on the face of it, so it is comforting that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the matter. The highest US Court rejects many cases each year, and hears many others. Regardless of the ultimate decision, victims can at least draw comfort that the highest legal authority in the land is willing to give their cases the same regard as others.

The never-ending nightmare for Toyota now comes with a hefty price tag. According to The Associated Press, the out-of-pocket costs of the lawsuits Toyota faces could reach a grand total in the neighborhood of $3 billion. Furious Toyota owners are claiming that the value of their automobiles have decreased massively since the recent flurry of recalls. And the 90 or so class-action suits against the car maker do not even include the potential payouts for personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Those cases could cost the company tens of millions of dollars a pop, while the value depreciation lawsuits are expected to be far more costly and damaging.

With millions of Toyota owners claiming lost value, there is a potential for the final costs of these lawsuits to be in the billions, making it one of the biggest class action lawsuits of all time. Based on a review of the cases, legal precedent, and interviews with experts, The Associated Press came up with the $3 billion dollar lawsuit estimate.  Some legal advisors think the final payout could be even higher. The possibility of millions of car owners receiving settlements of $1,000 or more would likely hurt the company more severely than any one single personal injury lawsuit.

The class action fever swirling around Toyota could be tamed when a panel of federal judges meets in San Diego later this month to decide whether or not the ever-growing number of cases should be condensed to one single jurisdiction.  Basically, it will all come down to how harshly the panel wants to discipline Toyota.  If they want to send a message about product liability and the seriousness of betraying consumers, expect a green light for the swarm of individual lawsuits against the company. If they’re looking to collectively put the ugliness behind them and expedite the cases, expect an all-encompassing jurisdiction. Either way, Toyota’s days in court have yet to begin, but however they unfold, Toyota is likely to lose big.

Related:   California Product Liability Attorney ;  Toyota Defect Troubles

In the slew of developing lawsuits naming Baxter’s drug Heparin, a blood thinning medication, the one involving James Bradley is particularly frightening primarily because the horrific results are more common than we might imagine.  Bradley was prescribed Heparin in 2007, and soon after he developed bodily injuries, which resulted in the amputation of his toes. Bradley and his wife Shirley are now seeking compensation for the physical and emotional damage that he experienced as a result of using the drug.

Unfortunately, the Bradley case is one of many in which patients have had to undergo amputation as a result of the decay and disease caused by Heparin. The drug, as it turns out, is known to cause a severe blood platelet disorder, also known as thrombocytopenia, in which users develop gangrene.  James and Shirley Bradley’s case claims that Baxter and other makers of Heparin are falsely marketing the drug as effective and safe to use.  The suit also alleges that the drug is defectively designed.

In 2008, Heparin was pulled off the market in an official recall after the product was discovered to be contaminated with a counterfeit ingredient that was causing severe allergic reactions and even death amongst people who used it. Chinese manufacturers who make the product were busted for using a dangerous, spurious active ingredient that injured and killed hundreds of people. There are half a million Americans on dialysis using Heparin, and though the drug is labeled with a laundry list of the potentially dangerous side effects, there is no mention of possible amputation or death.  Injured people looking for remediation of damage cause by taking the drug are filing more lawsuits against Baxter and other producers of heparin.  Lawsuits like the one filed by James and Shirley Bradley will hopefully push the dangers of Heparin into the spotlight.

Related:  Pharmaceutical Liability Attorney California

At the time it occurred, the road rage-fueled accident that killed a pedestrian safety advocate had shocked accident lawyers in California, and pedestrian rights groups.  In fact, using the term “accident” to describe the incident would be a stretch.  There was nothing accidental about the manner in which Swedish rapper David Moses Jassey bludgeoned John Osnes to death on an LA sidewalk.  The rapper has now been sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for Osnes’ murder.

Jassey, who also goes by the stage name Dave Monopoly, was driving on a Hollywood road when he nearly hit John Osnes who was crossing on a crosswalk. Osnes, a frail 55-year–old man had been a lifelong pedestrian rights advocate. Angered by Jassey’s encroachment of the crosswalk, the older man banged the hood of the rapper’s SUV. This set off Jassey, who apparently has a temper. The rapper, younger and better built than the frail Osnes, began raining blows on the man.  One last kick landed on Osnes’ head. Jassey allegedly then ran over Osnes’ battered body, before speeding away.

It looks like prison will provide the anger management class that Jassey desperately needs. This sentence hopefully should also serve as a wakeup call to those who have no respect for pedestrian rights. Los Angeles accident lawyers come across too many motorists who suffer from a bloated sense of entitlement to the road. There are responsibilities that come with driving a car, and these relate not just to other cars on the road, but also to pedestrians and bicyclists.

California’s auto-focused culture seems to have contributed to some high profile road rage-related incidents recently, which harmed both pedestrians and bicyclists. In January, this year, a Los Angeles doctor was sentenced to five years in prison for a road rage-fueled attack on two bicyclists. The bicyclists’ only fault was that they seemed to remind the doctor of nasty bicyclists in his Brentwood area.

Such instances only remind us of the vast risks to pedestrians and bicyclists, and the special protections they need.

When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that’s amoré.  But when a hot dog hits you in the eye at a sporting event, that’s a lawsuit. A renegade sausage, a man in a fuzzy lion costume, and an unlucky sports fan in the wrong place at the wrong time are some of the characters involved in one of the wackiest headlines to appear in personal injury lawsuit news in quite some time.

Jim Croomer was enjoying a night out at a Kansas City Royals baseball game last September. Croomer had what he thought were perfect seats — six rows up from the dugout along the action-packed third baseline. During a lighthearted break in the game, the Royals’ lion mascot, Sluggerrr, climbed atop the third base dugout and began firing hot dogs into the crowd from a cannon. Next, the mascot began hurling wieners to the fans by hand, and that’s when things got ugly. As Sluggerrr attempted a fancy, backwards toss, Jim Croomer alleges that the flying frank fell short of its target and hit him right in the eye.

Despite how humorous the event might seem, Croomer’s lawsuit against the Kansas City Royals, filed early in February of 2010, is no joke. He claims the hot dog caused a detached retina, and that he has had to undergo several surgeries. The faux lion is not personally named in the lawsuit, but Jim Croomer’s legal team does target the Kansas City Royals for liability because the mascot was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time.

It will certainly be up to the Kansas City courts to review all of the facts involved in this case, but sports fans could also learn a thing or two from the record. For example, when you see a lion armed with hot dogs, be prepared to duck.

Related Content:  Oakland, CA Personal Injury Lawyer

Good news for people who are frustrated by food and drug companies making claims about their products.

Dannon Yogurt was ordered to pay $45 Million in a Class Action case brought in Federal Court on behalf of Dannon’s customers.  The complaint focused on Dannon’s ACTIVIA and DANACTIVE yogurts that had been advertised as being “clinically” & “scientifically” proven to regulate digestion and boost immune systems.

The Federal Judge ruled that Dannon had not adequately proven their claims.  Besides the monetary damages, Dannon is being ordered to change its labeling and advertising for the products.

At first blush, some observers thought the award amount was high for a “food labeling” class action.  However, when one considers that Dannon sold these yogurts at a 30% higher price than their other products based on the false benefits, it is easy to understand why the courts came down so hard on Dannon.

Consumers who purchased Activia or DanActive in the past two years are entitled to receive settlement payments of between $15-$100.   Payments over $30 will require receipts, but for payments between $15-$30 receipts are not required.

The website allows consumers to enter in the date, location, specific product & cost of their related purchases.   If the total cost is more than $30, then you must submit the receipts.

Related Websites:

Dannon Settlement Website

California Class Action Attorneys

As Chrysler minivans prepare for a recall, somewhere Toyota executives are breathing a sigh of relief.  Some of the heat Toyota is feeling will be lifted as over 350,000 Chrysler minivans are recalled in a safety campaign launched by the automaker and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  The defect in the minivans could be fatal for drivers in colder climates.

The minivans in question are models made between 2005 and 2006, the extremely popular Grand Caravan, Dodge Caravan, and Chrysler Town & Country.   All three models are being recalled for airbag issues.  The recall will only affect models that were sold in 28 “salt belt states,” as well as parts of Canada, where winter conditions require salting of the roads and highways.  In states with severe weather conditions and rough roads, airbag sensors in the minivans can crack causing them to get wet or damaged and putting the lives of drivers and passengers at risk. When the sensors are wet, the airbag might become inactive causing it to fail to deploy.  Chrysler insists that this recall is a precautionary measure and notes that the minivans are all equipped with warning lights that will alert drivers of any malfunction. So far, no accidents or injuries caused by the malfunctioning airbags have been reported.

While it is unclear if this airbag issue is the first of many for Chrysler, it is certain that tougher standards for automakers and recall mania will continue. Even if it is a huge pain for big car companies, this is great news for drivers concerned with feeling safe on the road.

Related:  Oakland, CA Defective Products Lawyer

Sufferes of diabetes thought they found a golden ticket in Avandia.  Backed with big bucks’ promotion and relentless advertising, Avandia appeared to be a friend to people with diabetes.  Sold as a diabetes management drug, Avandia was pushed on websites like diabetes.com and diabetesmanagment.com, which are sites owned by their maker, GlaxoSmithKline.  The sales skyrocketed and doctors across the country prescribed Avandia to millions.  Yet Advandia wasn’t all it appeared to be.  Two years of investigations and questions about the drug quietly simmered in the background.  GlaxoSmithKline has seen its stock drop this week and the Food and Drug Administration has called for an advisory committee to meet in July to discuss the safety of Avandia.  So what happened to the diabetes wonder drug?

The short answer is that GSK and the FDA have conflicting reports to just how dangerous Advandia can be.  The FDA is under fire for allowing clinical trials of the drug after scientists concluded that Avandia had caused over 80,000 heart attacks from 1999 to 2007, while GSK insists that the proper clinical trials have proven that Avandia is safe.  A Senate committee is currently probing the British pharmaceutical company as well.  Until the FDA’s committee findings however, the agency has informed patients currently using the drug to continue to do so unless their doctors advise them to stop.

Consumer advocates and legal experts however are advising that questions be asked and that the responsible parties be held accountable for a drug that could potentially cause heart attacks. Lawsuits involving wrongful death and injury regarding Avandia have been popping up in courthouse across the country for the past few years.  While the committees continue to meet and the drug companies continue to battle with the FDA, lives of patients hang in the balance.  In short, anything promising to be a wonder drug should be approached cautiously.

Related Information:  California Pharmaceutical Liability Attorney

Whether you’ve simply been stranded on the tarmac for hours at a time or your life has been affected by an unforeseen airplane crash or accident, we can all agree that something needs to be done to protect passengers. In fact, ask your co-workers or friends and you’re sure to hear one or several airline nightmare stories. So perhaps the time for a Passenger’s Bill of Rights has arrived. Over ten years in the making, The Passenger’s Bill of Rights is either the best thing to happen to air travel since honey roasted peanuts or it is a classic case of “too little, too late.” It all depends on whom you ask.

The bill of rights, endorsed and pushed by President Obama, restricts airlines from keeping passengers tapped on a grounded flight for more than three hours and mandates that the airlines must provide adequate food, water and restrooms for all passengers on board. Airlines who choose to ignore the new rules, which are expected to go into affect on April 29th, will be slapped with a steep $27,000 fine. Frequent fliers are clearly the ones who stand to gain here as do aviation crash attorneys if the airlines do not play by the rules. Many business travelers have long waited for changes in the industry and have wasted too many hours stuck somewhere when they could be working or returning home. Others, though, think these changes aren’t enough, and the protections for passengers need to go even further.

The airlines, as you can imagine, are none too thrilled with The Passenger’s Bill of Rights. Many airlines, like Southwest, have already begun fighting back by implementing premature cancellations of scheduled flights during harsh weather conditions to avoid a possible fine in the future. This is sure to cause even more drama at the already anxiety-infused airports of today. The debate of what exactly is best for travelers is sure to rage on over the next several months.