Articles Posted in Product Defects

by

An Illinois federal judge upheld a jury verdict for a woman permanently disabled in a motorcycle crash even though her expert witness did not pinpoint the exact cause of the crash. McCloud v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. America, Ltd. WL 2323792 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2008).

Trish McCloud was severely injured in 2002 when the rear tire blew out on her Honda Gold Wing motorcycle. Her expert witness narrowed down the tire defect to three possible manufacturing errors by defendant, Goodyear. Based on his testimony the jury awarded her damages under her Illinois product liability claim.

Goodyear asked for a new trial, in part because it felt that McCloud’s expert had not adequately proved that its product was defective. McCloud’s expert had testified that the blowout was the result of a nylon cord getting embedded in the tire’s innermost layer rather than the layers of rubber, which was where it belonged. This then caused a bubble to form in the sidewall layer of the tire, which eventually burst. Her expert posed three different ways this Illinois product defect could have occurred during the manufacturing process, but did not pinpoint which one specifically was the cause.

In response, Goodyear reasoned that the blowout was the result of the tire being overloaded and under-inflated. It argued that the motorcycle itself was overweight, which would have contributed to this blowout, and further cited inadequate checking of the tire pressure by the owner. Furthermore, the fact that none of its other customers had reported a similar problem was a factor to be considered.

Continue reading

by

Consider the following scenario. You work at a Chicago manufacturing factory. One day the machine you operate becomes jammed. In order to try to remove the jammed material you remove the machine’s guard and place your hand inside. But as you do this the machine starts up and crushes your hand. You are now permanently disabled and unable to do your job. What are your legal options?
Because of Illinois worker’s compensation law you are limited to recover against your employer in the Illinois Industrial Commission and cannot bring a separate civil lawsuit directly against your employer. But if your injury at work involved a machine or product then you may be able to recover damages from the manufacturer in a product liability claim brought as a separate civil suit.

The most common product liability claim from work-related injuries is due to the product’s lack of safety features, such as a guard or an automatic shut-off that is activated when the guard was removed, or a release lever that kills the power instantly. When a product fails to include a reasonable safety feature that makes it unduly dangerous to its user then the manufacturer can be held liable for any injuries sustained while operating the machine.

Continue reading

by

The parents of 8-month-old Joshua Flax filed suit against DaimlerChrysler after their son was killed in a car accident involving their 1998 Dodge Caravan. The wrongful death case centered on the allegedly defective design of the minivan’s front seat backs. Jeremy Flax, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., et al.

Joshua Flax was in the back seat of the minivan when it was rear-ended. The impact caused the front seat to collapse and its passenger to strike Joshua in the head, fracturing his skull. No other passengers were seriously injured and all parties agreed that Joshua was only fatally injured because of the product liability of the collapsed seat.

In late 2004, a jury found DaimlerChrysler’s seats to be defective and unreasonably dangerous, awarding a total of $105,500,000 to Joshua’s parents. This amount was later reduced, but the verdict was upheld all the way through the Supreme Court.

Continue reading

by

Defendant Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth dealership in Cook County lucked out with an ideological “get out of trial free” card in a product liability case involving a car sold at his dealership. Murphy v. Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. 2008 WL 927727.

The Illinois Appellate Court’s clarification of section 2-261 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure makes it easier for non-manufacturers to be dismissed from strict product liability cases in Illinois. The relevant section states that

“A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer . . . where the plaintiff can show . . . That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage”. 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c)(2).

So if plaintiff could prove that the defendant knew about the product defect then the defendant could not be dismissed from case. However, Murphy takes this interpretation a step further to determine whether it is enough that defendant just knows about the alleged defect or whether they need to know that the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous, too?
In Murphy, Plaintiff Joseph Murphy claimed that he was paralyzed in a rollover accident because his Sebring lacked a roll bar safety device. He alleged that Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth sold him a Sebring that was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a roll bar. Mancari confirmed that they knew that the vehicle did not have a roll bar, but still claimed that this did not make them directly responsible.

Continue reading

by

NASCAR driver Michael McDowell walked away from a violent rollover car crash during a race at the Texas Motor Speedway earlier this year. After skidding into a wall and flipping across the track several times he climbed out of his crashed vehicle unhurt. This complete lack of injury is unimaginable in your typical car, but NASCAR vehicles come equipped with roll bars to prevent roof crush in rollover crashes.

Unfortunately your typical street car doesn’t come equipped with as stringent safety standards as those enforced by NASCAR. Currently the roof crush standard in the United States requires that the roof must be able to withstand pressure of at least 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight. This is the same standard which was established in 1973 and has remained unchanged since its inception. In 2005 Congress proposed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) upgrade its standards in an effort to reduce injuries and fatalities from rollover crashes.

Recently NHTSA came to Congress with a proposal for increasing the weight ratio to 2.5. The minimal increase has drawn a lot of controversy with its opponents calling the increase ineffective. In 2007, over 10,000 people died in rollover crashes. In Illinois there were over 5,000 rollover accidents in just 2006. Yet the NHTSA estimates that its proposed increase would only result in 13 to 44 fewer rollover fatalities a year. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) stated, “If we have a little increase in roof strength that doesn’t result in a major decrease in injuries and fatalities, we’ve done nothing.”

And while the ratio change is minimal and drawn criticism as being ineffective there is another controversy surrounding the bill. Possibly worse yet the NHTSA proposal has a throw in; the agency inserted language which would preempt car accident victims from suing any manufacturer who met the minimum standard.

Continue reading