Product Liability

Chrysler Group, the U.S. automaker run by Fiat, said it would accept product liability claims on Chrysler vehicles made before the company exited bankruptcy June 10 and those involved in accidents on or after that date. Chrysler Group announced its changed policy on liability claims in a letter sent to members of Congress, the company said. Chrysler Group purchased most of the assets of the old Chrysler company, now called Old Carco, when it emerged from bankruptcy. Initially, as part of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's approval of the purchase, Chrysler Group agreed to assume liability only for cars sold by the new company.

Surfboard manufacturers have a number of concerns — heavy competition, expensive shipping and employees who occasionally like to slip out early when there's a good break. Product liability lawsuits typically aren't one of their worries. That's what makes a lawsuit that recreational surfer Tom Gregg filed against Channel Islands Surfboards a little unusual. Gregg contends that a fin on his Channel Islands board cut a deep gash on his right leg when he wiped out off the coast of France in 2009.

Regarding Robert J. Samuelson's commentary, "Streamlining Product-Liability Suits" (June 24), I agree with many of his comments. Product liability laws compensate the victims of defective products and deter the future manufacture and sale of such products. When a company acts outrageously with a "let 'em burn" attitude as Ford Motor Co. did in the Pinto cases, then punitive damages are also appropriate. I part company with Samuelson, however, when he advocates the so-called "English rule" which would require the "loser" to pay the legal fees of the winning attorney or make the losing attorney personally liable if the case were taken on contingency.

Toyota Motor Corp.'s massive recalls for acceleration and braking problems are creating a huge legal liability for the company -- and Toyota owners may share in the pain. The Japanese automaker faces dozens of lawsuits over injuries and deaths attributed to safety problems, with many more suits expected. Lawyers and legal experts said the lawsuits could be particularly expensive for the automaker if plaintiffs prove that Toyota was aware of problems but failed to correct them. On top of that, there are at least 30 lawsuits seeking class-action status to recover damages for the reduced value of the cars and the lost use of vehicles during repairs.

Surfboard manufacturers have a number of concerns — heavy competition, expensive shipping and employees who occasionally like to slip out early when there's a good break. Product liability lawsuits typically aren't one of their worries. That's what makes a lawsuit that recreational surfer Tom Gregg filed against Channel Islands Surfboards a little unusual. Gregg contends that a fin on his Channel Islands board cut a deep gash on his right leg when he wiped out off the coast of France in 2009.

Re "Whose Vioxx is gored?" Opinion, Aug. 28 Michael Kinsley's article about Vioxx, while clever, misstates the laws governing negligence and product liability. If a person, as Kinsley suggests, cuts up and eats a beach ball, the resulting "dire consequences" are not, nor should they be, compensable under existing law because eating a beach ball is not the intended use for the product, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn against such an unanticipated event. Except for cigarettes, which cause injury and death when used in the manner intended by the manufacturer, most products, when so used, are required to be relatively safe.

By U.S. standards, Yoko Masuda isn't asking for much in damages for the death of her daughter, crushed by a wheel that rolled off a Mitsubishi Motors Corp. truck. Her suit against the company seeks $51,000 for the stress and high blood pressure she has suffered since her daughter, Shiho Okamoto, 29, was killed as she walked down a sidewalk in January 2002. "I feel as though a part of my body has been torn away," Masuda said, choking back tears.

General Motors Corp. has agreed to take on responsibility for future product liability claims, removing what could have been a sizable roadblock on the automaker's path to a quick sale of its assets and emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a new company. As part of its government-backed restructuring plan, GM wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a new company and leave behind unprofitable assets and other liabilities such as product-related lawsuits.

With presidential campaign politics in full bloom, President Clinton vowed Saturday to veto a product-liability bill that would restrict consumers' ability to win damages from makers of defective products. The president also chastised the Republican-led House for watering down an antiterrorism bill he favored.

A coalition of consumers, environmentalists, seniors and trial lawyers Monday demanded passage of newly revived legislation that would make public the details of confidential legal agreements reached in product liability, environmental hazard and certain fraud cases. On the flip side of the big-stakes economic battle, the titans of California business and industry dug in for a heavy siege, arguing that such exposure could make trade secrets known to foreign competitors and worsen the recession.

Chrysler Group, the U.S. automaker run by Fiat, said it would accept product liability claims on Chrysler vehicles made before the company exited bankruptcy June 10 and those involved in accidents on or after that date. Chrysler Group announced its changed policy on liability claims in a letter sent to members of Congress, the company said. Chrysler Group purchased most of the assets of the old Chrysler company, now called Old Carco, when it emerged from bankruptcy. Initially, as part of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's approval of the purchase, Chrysler Group agreed to assume liability only for cars sold by the new company.

General Motors Corp. has agreed to take on responsibility for future product liability claims, removing what could have been a sizable roadblock on the automaker's path to a quick sale of its assets and emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a new company. As part of its government-backed restructuring plan, GM wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a new company and leave behind unprofitable assets and other liabilities such as product-related lawsuits.

In October 2005, Jeremy Warriner swerved his new Jeep Wrangler to avoid an oncoming car and crashed into a utility pole. The pole fell, trapping Warriner inside the car. Then, engineers hired by his attorneys alleged, the plastic brake fluid reservoir broke, setting the Jeep on fire. Warriner awoke from a medically induced coma 5 1/2 weeks later with two amputated legs. But his lawsuit against Chrysler ended before it even went to court.

Ford Motor Co. lost a bid Wednesday to overturn an $82.6-million judgment over an Explorer sport utility vehicle accident that left a woman paralyzed. The California Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court's decision to uphold a jury's ruling that Ford was responsible for the woman's injuries. Ford plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A San Diego jury in June 2004 awarded Benetta Buell-Wilson and her husband $369 million, including $246 million in punitive damages.

An initiative proposed for the November ballot would curb the abilities of plaintiffs to collect punitive damages in many product-liability cases. Supporters of the state measure, which include oil giant Chevron Corp. and the business-funded Civil Justice Assn. of California have launched a signature-gathering campaign to put the issue before voters.

Re "Whose Vioxx is gored?" Opinion, Aug. 28 Michael Kinsley's article about Vioxx, while clever, misstates the laws governing negligence and product liability. If a person, as Kinsley suggests, cuts up and eats a beach ball, the resulting "dire consequences" are not, nor should they be, compensable under existing law because eating a beach ball is not the intended use for the product, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn against such an unanticipated event. Except for cigarettes, which cause injury and death when used in the manner intended by the manufacturer, most products, when so used, are required to be relatively safe.

Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked legislation that would have shielded small businesses from product liability lawsuits, complaining that Republicans would not let them influence the bill even as GOP leaders were slipping in their own pet provisions. Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) declared the bill dead for the year. The Democrats "were totally playing games on this," Lott fumed. "If they want to be on the side of the suing plaintiff lawyers, we'll take the side of the American people."

President Clinton, delivering on a promise to plaintiffs' attorneys and some consumer groups, vetoed a bill Thursday that would limit damages in product-liability lawsuits. Rejecting a measure that passed Congress by large bipartisan majorities in March, Clinton said the bill "tilts against American families and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective product."

U.S. highway safety officials proposed new rules Friday to reduce deaths and injuries from roof failures when vehicles flip over, extending the standards to cover large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks. But consumer advocates denounced the proposal as toothless and attacked a provision that would bar victims of roof failures from suing automakers that meet the new standard.

Morning sickness -- the nausea and vomiting that afflicts more than half of all pregnant women -- can be debilitating. There used to be an excellent prescription medication to treat it, but the manufacturer stopped selling the drug in the United States. Safety problems? Unprofitability? Not at all. Frivolous, debilitating lawsuits killed this drug.