A class-action lawsuit that has been filed in California claims that Toyota Motor Corp. sold several models of the 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid vehicle; even though the company was aware that the vehicles came with defective inverter assemblies that caused the vehicle to suddenly lose all motor power.

The class-action has been filed on behalf of all Americans who own or lease a 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid with a defective inverter assembly.  In February, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirmed that it had begun a preliminary investigation into consumer complaints of stalling and loss of motor power in 2006 and 2007 model year Highlander Hybrids.

The Toyota Highlander Hybrid was the company’s first hybrid version of the Highlander.  An integral part of this hybrid vehicle is the electrical inverter assembly, which changes the DC current from the car battery into AC current to power the motor.  In case of a defective inverter assembly, the vehicle begins to lose engine power while the vehicle is being driven.  The complaint alleges that Toyota was aware of the defective inverter assemblies in the Highlander Hybrid vehicle’s first generation models. 

According to the Toyota Highlander Hybrid class action lawsuit, the company was well aware that the inverter assembly installed in the very first production of the Highlander Hybrid Vehicles, was defective.  It then began installing an updated inverter assembly in Highlander Hybrid vehicles beginning with VIN number JTEDW21A060009725 for two-wheel drive vehicles and VIN number JTEEW21A660019910 for four-wheel drive vehicles.

However, the company failed to recall the vehicles or replace or repair any of the defective assemblies.  All that the company did was issue a Technical Service Bulletin that advised technicians about the defective inverter assemblies, and recommended that the electrical inverter assembly be replaced with an updated assembly, but only if the customer complained. 

Interestingly to California product liability attorneys, the inverter assemblies that have been used in the Toyota Highlander Hybrid mentioned in the lawsuit are the same ones that were used in the Toyota 2006 Lexus Rx400H hybrid sports utility vehicle.

The Ford window glass class action attorneys at our firm are investigating the possibility of a class-action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, related to exploding window glass in Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx vehicles of model years between 1981 and 1990.

In Wise v. Ford, the plaintiff was driving his daughter's car through a mechanical car wash.  As the car was sprayed by the water jets, the window suddenly exploded, and shattered into fragments.   Wise was injured in the incident.  He filed a product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. 

Ford claimed that the window glass which includes a compressed lining, was already chipped or broken previously, and that this caused the window to break.  Almost every car comes with windshields and windows that are covered with this compressed lining, protecting the glass beneath.  When there is a nick or chip on the lining, it causes the glass to disintegrate.  Ford's argument was that this chip or nick in the lining was present before the car entered the car wash.

Since Wise v. Ford, there have been several instances of Ford car windows shattering or disintegrating suddenly in car washes.  Since then, it has also emerged that window glass breakage was a serious problem on Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx vehicles manufactured between 1981 through 1990.  In fact, documents that came out during the Wise v. Ford trial, showed that Ford had access to information that these breakages occurred far too frequently with Ford models.   Other models of cars manufactured by other manufacturers did not face the same problem in car washes. 

These documents obtained from Ford include a bulletin from the International Carwash Association to other car wash operators.  The bulletin was dated July 1991, and clearly states that carwash operators around the country have seen such frequent glass breakage problems with Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx models.  Operators reported exploding glass in these vehicles, either while the car was in the car wash, in the finishing area of the carwash, or on the street soon after the customer left the carwash.  According to the bulletin, these cases of exploded glass were seen mostly in Ford vehicles.

California product liability lawyers can add sleep positioners to a long list of deadly children’s products. For years now, parents have used infant sleep positioners as a means of enabling their baby to sleep on the back without rolling over onto the stomach, and preventing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.   The Food and Drug Administration is now warning that there have been several suffocation deaths related to the use of these sleep positioners.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, it has information about a total of 12 reported infant deaths from the use of sleep positioners over the past 13 years.  The federal agency is in fact recommending that parents and caregivers no longer use the positioners for their infants.  The agency says that most of these infants suffocated when they moved from a position on the back to a stomach position. 

Sleep positioners are available in two models.  They can be flat mats with two bolsters on each side to prevent the baby from rolling over onto its front.  They can also come as inclined mats with separate side bolsters.  Both these types of sleep positioners are used to prevent babies from rolling over onto the front and suffocating. 

In fact, manufacturers of these sleep positioners claim that they help keep babies on their backs, and lower the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.  The Food and Drug Administration, however, has never approved of these products as safe for use with infants.  Besides, the federal agency say that it is not aware of any scientific data to corroborate the claim that these sleep positioners actually reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or any other kind of suffocation risk.

The risk from using these sleep positioners are serious enough for the Food and Drug Administration to warn that these must be discarded.  The federal agency is in effect adding these products to a long list of children's products that have been confirmed as being dangerous.

The “B” hood ornament on every Bentley is a mark of prestige for its owner.  It may also increase the risk of injuries to pedestrians during an accident.  That's the reason behind a recall of approximately 1,500 Bentleys across the world.

According to Bentley, the problem is that the hood ornament is supposed to retract automatically when it comes into contact with another object.  However, corrosion could prevent the ornament from retracting completely, and the ornament could cause serious injuries in a pedestrian accident.  The problem seems to have come to light only after a dealer in the UK noticed that the hood ornaments failed to retract completely during impact. 

The recall involves the Arnaze, Brooklyn and Azure manufactured between 2007 and 2009.  The hood ornament includes a capital “B” with a pair of wings attached to the back.  For Bentley owners, this has been a mark of prestige and a status symbol.  It is also been a symbol to distinguish a Bentley from its competitor Rolls-Royce, which has a similar looking hood ornament.

Later this month, Bentley owners can get their cars over to their dealer to get a new hood ornament free of charge.  There is no information whether the hood ornaments have been responsible for causing any injuries yet.  The recall may sound quaint, and the problem may seem mild compared to Toyota’s sudden acceleration or Ford's unintended rollovers.  However, it is a potentially serious problem, and it could cause serious injuries in a pedestrian accident.  A pedestrian could easily suffer puncture injuries during impact.  Even impalement is not such a far-fetched scenario. 

Other carmakers, including Mercedes-Benz, have also modified their hood ornaments to accommodate safety concerns.  Mercedes Benz’s famous tri-pointed hood ornament is now a safer logo on the grille.  California product liability lawyers understand that it may be less stately looking, but it is much safer.

A nationwide outbreak of salmonella poisoning has once again left the Food and Drug Administration with egg on its face.  With the sheer size of the recall - more than 550 million eggs - and the fact that thousands of people have been sickened, we will likely find that more members of the public will step up to join food safety groups, and California food poisoning class action lawyers to call for a sweeping overhaul of American food safety laws.

More than 2,000 people are believed to have fallen sick from eating the salmonella-tainted eggs.  The source of the contamination has been traced to two farms in Iowa.  Interestingly enough, both the farms have common ties.  They are connected to DeCoster Farms, and the founder of the firm, Austin “Jack” DeCoster, reportedly has a history of environmental law violations.  DeCoster has also been cited for several health and employment violations over the years.  He owns Wright County Egg, one of the farms linked to the contaminated eggs.  He also owns another farm called Quality Egg, which supplies young chickens to the other Iowa farm, Hillendale Farm, which also recalled 170 million eggs. 

The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg has confirmed that both the farms were not “behaving responsibly” before the recall.  FDA staff has conducted on-site inspections of both farms, and findings are expected next week.

The FDA says it could not have prevented the epidemic because as of July 9, it did not have the power to inspect farms.  Oversight of farms is among those gray areas where the duties and responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration overlap with those of the US Department of Agriculture.  While the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the hens, the FDA is responsible for the feed and the eggs.  That surreal explanation is also the reason why food safety in the US is such a challenging area, and also why strong legislation is needed to give the FDA the power it sorely needs.  

Between 2004 and 2005, there were nearly 144,800 children who were injured from the use of medical devices. These injuries were serious enough for the children to be taken to an emergency room. Many of these injuries involved the use of contact lenses, but a number of other injuries were caused because of malfunctioning cardiac and gynecology devices, needless shunts and other devices.

Those facts come from a study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration, into the prevalence of medical device-related injuries among children.  This is the first study conducted into injuries from the use of medical devices among children. California product liability lawyers  believe there was  a need for a study like this, because of the higher number of children with chronic illnesses and conditions who now receive the treatment they need right at home.  Home care has numerous benefits for a sick child, but it may also cause complications when devices malfunction, or parents and caregivers are unable to use these properly.  There are also other challenges, because many sophisticated medical devices that were meant to be used on adults are also currently being used for children.

Most injuries include infections and abrasions from contact lenses that have not been cleaned properly.  There are other common issues, include tears during gynecological examinations, infections in children with ear tubes, and puncture wounds from needles breaking.  There are also injuries caused from pediatric infusion pumps, brain shunts and chest catheters.

More facts and figures from study:

• The researchers found approximately 34,000 contact lens-related injuries in the children.
• The data came from hospital ER figures and included around 100 hospitals.
• These medical device-related injuries resulted in 6% of the children having to be hospitalized.

The researchers are planning further study into how and why these injuries occurred.  If they come up with strong explanations, they may even place restrictions on the use of certain medical devices in children and teenagers.

It’s the first federal standard for baby bath seats, and is part of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's growing efforts to implement guidelines set down in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act for a range of baby and toddler products. The CPSC has now set new federal safety standards for infant bath seats.

Currently, baby bath seats are only subject to voluntary ATSM requirements. The new rule sets stricter standards for manufacturers that require that the backseat does not tip over, causing the baby to fall. It also incorporates requirements for tighter leg openings to prevent children from being able to slip through the openings. It also requires a large permanent warning label informing parents and caregivers that bath seats are not meant to be used as safety devices, and that infants must never be left alone and unattended in a bath seat for any period of time.

The CPSC's new standards also include latching and locking devices. The bath seats must also meet CPSC standards for sharp edges and points, and small detachable parts that can pose a suffocation risk for a baby. Bath seats must now also meet the CPSC's lead standards.

California class action lawyers have felt the lack of proper safety guidelines for infant bath seats for a while now. Between 1983 and 2009, 104 children were killed in accidents involving bath seats. There were also at least 300 nonfatal bath seat accidents. Most of these accidents occurred because parents or caregivers left the children unattended while bathing.

It's important for parents to understand that it doesn't take a lot of water for a 10-month-old infant to drown.  In the time that it takes for you to open the door or answer a call, you baby might get completely submerged in the water. It's also not advisable to leave your baby under the care of an older sibling in the bath.

The increasing practice of using fabric slings to cart along babies has had California class action lawyers very concerned. Since these slings came into the marketplace, they have been linked to a number of reports of suffocation deaths and injuries in from falls. Those concerns were heightened earlier this year when the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a special warning, cautioning parents that their babies might be at risk of suffocation, if placed in the soft fabric baby slings.

The same concerns are being renewed this week as the CPSC, along with a company called Sprout Stuff from Austin, Texas, announced a recall of fabric baby slings. The infant ring slings have been linked to at least one confirmed death involving a 10-day-old baby boy in Texas. That death was recorded in 2007. The CPSC is warning parents to stop using the slings immediately.

Baby slings have become the fashionable accessory trendy parents must have. Wearing slings is believed to strengthen parent-child bonds. Unfortunately, the practice of wearing babies close to the body, increases the risk of the infant being smothered to death. A baby could turn its face towards the mother, and suffocate. A newborn baby, with no control over its head and neck muscles, could suffocate when its head falls on its chest. There've also been reports of injuries involving children who fell out of the slings.

These slings are exceedingly comfortable to wear, and comfy for the baby because they're made of fabric and little else. Unfortunately, the CPSC has no standards in place for baby slings, and this has allowed a number of companies to crop up, marketing trendy, but possibly unsafe, baby slings to young and trendy parents.

The CPSC is working hard to fix that. It announced earlier this year that it would be developing a set of standards for baby slings. These standards must take into consideration the fact that most baby slings are used for newborn babies who are at a special risk of suffocation.