Articles Posted in Products Liability

The Insurance Journal reported today on an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that found that General Motors’ vehicles had both the highest and lowest death rates in the period between 2002 and 2005. Chevrolet Blazers built from 2001 to 2004 had 232 driver deaths per million registered vehicles during the four-year span, the highest of any vehicle. The Acura RSX had the second-highest rate with 202 driver deaths followed by the Nissan 350Z, which registered 193 deaths. The rate represents the reported number of driver deaths divided by the model’s number of registered years.

In contrast, the Chevrolet Astro minivan had the lowest rate with only seven deaths per million registered vehicles. It was followed by the Infiniti G35, BMW 7 Series and the Toyota 4Runner. Ironically, Chevy no longer makes the Blazer or the Astro.

My guess is that the Chevy Astro is not 33 times safer than a Chevy Blazer. The demographics in terms of risk-taking behaviors are different for the purchaser of a minivan than a sporty SUV because the study did not consider driver behavior or how the vehicles are used. Still, there are still meaningful conclusions that can be drawn from this study about which vehicles are the safest and least safe to drive. The profile on the driver of a Chevy Blazers cannot be that different from the drivers of Toyota 4-Runners.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that Genentech posted a letter on its website warning eye specialists of its new eye drug Lucentis, which may increase the risk of stroke for those on Lucentis. Genentech found that patients taking their marketed dose of Lucentis were much more likely to suffer a stroke than patients taking a lower dose.

Lucentis treats age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, macular edema, and other serious eye conditions.

A Philadelphia jury found that Wyeth’s hormone replacement therapy Prempro caused an Arkansas woman’s breast cancer and awarded the victim’s family $1.5 million. The jury found that Wyeth was negligent in failing to provide adequate warnings about the risk of breast cancer associated with the use of Prempro.

We expect the jury to return this week with a decision on punitive damages. In Maryland, under Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (1992), a landmark Maryland Court of Appeals’ opinion, punitive damages in this case against Wyeth for failing to warn about the risks of Prempro would have to be supported by a showing that the conduct of Wyeth was malicious, or the result of evil motive, or ill will. There are no such allegations in the Prempro litigation.

Background on Prempro

Last week, I wrote about the Consumer Reports article on failed infant car seats. As I wrote the post, my wife was spending a few hundred dollars on new car seats for our 3-month-old twins. Sure enough, Consumer Reports retracted the article this week after receiving data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who reported the car seats did well at the correct impact speed.

In their tests, Consumer Reports simulated impacts at over 70 miles an hour instead of simulating impacts at 38 miles an hour. I thought it was probably silly to buy new car seats, particularly given the data offered on the side impact risk to infants. But how can you argue against taking the safest course for your kids? You can’t. Now, if you are a lawyer out there considering a class action against Consumer Reports, you have your first client. I’m kidding, that would be a frivolous lawsuit. But do not be surprised to see one.

Speaking of frivolous lawsuits, a personal injury attorney announced in a news conference in California that he was filing a wrongful death case on behalf of the family of a 28-year-old woman who died in a water-drinking contest on a radio show. The attorney said the wrongful death suit would name the radio station as the defendant, presumably for holding the contest. I do not think this is a meritorious case nor do I think it helps the cause of personal injury lawyers and their clients. I will offer more thoughts on this case this weekend.

Consumer Reports announced today that car seats for infants often cannot withstand the impact of vehicle accidents when a vehicle strikes its side. Of the models tested in simulations of such impacts, ten failed, some of them “disastrously,” according to the magazine’s February issue.

The car seats are rear-facing models that are required in Maryland for infants up to 1-year-old or about 22 pounds. The law requires car seat manufacturers to test the seats for head-on accidents, but not for broadside crashes, which kill about 30 infants a year in the United States.

As I write this post, my wife is out purchasing new car seats for our almost three month-twins as I expect are a lot of other people in Maryland and around the country today. The irony of all of this is that I love Consumer Reports, to where I rarely buy anything other than their top-rated product. The car seats we have now been made by Britax, a product that Consumer Reports had previously rated, you guessed it, number #1. Britax also failed the test.

Over 60,000 Chrysler vehicles are being recalled to reprogram a brake system computer whose defects may lead to an inability to control the car. Chrysler says the failure occurs when the instrument panel warning lamps illuminate, followed by the loss of various controls in some cars. They report no accidents or injuries yet. Moral of the story: if you are driving a Chrysler and the panel warning lamps illuminate, don’t keep driving your car.

I do not have a lot of information to go off of, but it sounds like Chrysler is doing the right thing here by catching this wave before it really breaks. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have an obligation to point out not only what enormous companies are doing wrong but what they are doing right. The knock on personal injury lawyers has always been the “for a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” I hope this blog fights hard to avoid the assumption that every big business and insurance companies are the nails to our hammer in every case. Chrysler appears to have done the right thing.

• 2010 Chrysler Recall (another apparently responsible recall of 2009-2010 Dodge Ram trucks and 2010 Chrysler Sebring, Jeep Liberty, Dodge Avenger, Dodge Nitro, and Commander and Grand Cherokee SUVs).