http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/seatbelt_defects Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:12:47 -0800 pixel-app en http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10912 Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10912
After 15 hours of deliberation, jurors in the four-week accident liability trial gave the plaintiffs everything they sought in their lawsuit against Motor Coach Industries, a Schaumburg, Ill.-based bus manufacturer.

“A person who sits on a bus ought to have the opportunity to be as safe as possible,” said David Hinton, of Temple, whose mother Dolores Hinton was killed in the accident. “To not have a seat belt on a bus, knowing what buses can do in an accident, is unacceptable. Clearly we had to have a trial in order to prove that point.”

Motor Coach spokeswoman Pat Plodzeen said the company would appeal the verdict.

“Passenger safety is the highest priority for (Motor Coach), and we stand behind the design of our coaches,” she said.

Plodzeen said that Motor Coach buses, like all other tour buses manufactured for North American use, do not include seat belts because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other industry experts have found that installing seat belts would not “enhance overall occupant protection.”

The accident occurred when 34 people from Memorial Baptist Church in Temple were traveling in a chartered bus to Dallas on Feb. 14, 2003, for a Christian music concert. The bus driver lost control in rainy conditions near Hewitt, crossed the median and crashed into a southbound Chevrolet Suburban.

Seven people were killed in the accident, including five on the bus and two in the Suburban, according to an accident report by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Nineteen bus passengers and their family members sued Motor Coach for a range of damages, including medical bills, past and future lost wages, burial expenses and the mental anguish resulting from the death of a spouse or parent.

In Judge Jim Meyer's 170th State District Court, plaintiffs' lawyers argued that buses without seat belts are unreasonably dangerous, despite the fact federal regulations do not require them. They said seat belts, along with laminated safety glass on passenger windows, would have protected passengers who were ejected from the bus in the Valentine's Day accident.

The plaintiffs urged the jury to embrace the case as an opportunity to enact change in bus safety standards.

“I think that what the verdict reflects is that the jury saw this as a significant issue and an issue that requires significant response,” lawyer Thomas Brown, of Houston, said after the trial. “Our hope is that this in fact will be a verdict that leads to change.”

Defense lawyers argued that Motor Coach designed its buses with a range of safety features, including “compartmentalization,” or restraint consisting of high-backed, padded seats. They said the bus was designed to protect passengers in the most commonly occurring accidents, which are collisions that do not involve the bus rolling or tipping over.

After the trial, some jurors said compartmentalization was not an acceptable safety measure.

“If that bus turns over, right out the window you go,” said Gary Paris, 60, of West, the jury foreman. “You've got no protection at all.”

Defense lawyers also argued that the bus driver, whom they said was driving too fast for the rainy conditions, was the cause of the accident, deaths and injuries.

But in interviews after the verdict, jurors indicated that they adopted the plaintiffs' argument that a need for seat belts in buses eclipsed the specifics of the crash or minimum federal standards.

“My personal view is everybody has waited for somebody else to do something and nobody has done nothing for public safety,” Paris said.

“You can meet minimum requirements, but can they do more to make it safer for the public?

“I hope in five years when my grandson gets on a bus, if he's got to go on a school trip or whatever, I hope that there are seat belts on that bus so he can have the choice to use it or not,” Paris said.

A second trial with a second set of plaintiffs from the same case has yet to be scheduled. The second trial involves plaintiffs who sued Motor Coach after Texas tort reform laws took effect in 2003. The lawsuits completed Thursday involved plaintiffs who sued before tort reform took effect.
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8644 Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8644
Involved in the Mazda recall are Tributes from the 2001-2003 model years with 3-liter, V6 engines.

In a letter sent to NHTSA in May 2002, Mazda said the engine stalling didnt present an unreasonable risk to motor safety. At that time, Mazda said it had received 2,087 reports of stalling and that accidents resulted in three cases.

The Tribute is similar to the Ford Escape, which was recalled earlier this week for the same defect. Ford said engine stalling in the Escape had caused eight minor accidents.

Mazda dealers will reprogram the Tribute for free as part of the recall.

Also Thursday, General Motors Corp. said it will recall some of its 2001 and 2002 Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Oldsmobile Bravada SUVs because their seat belts dont meet federal safety standards.

GM spokesman Jim Schell said the company is still determining which of its SUVs need to have their seat belts replaced, but the recall could affect up to 1.8 million vehicles. GM said the seat belt defect wouldnt affect safety, but NHTSA disagreed. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8642 Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8642
Martin Mendoza filed the suit against the automaker March 13, 2003 , claiming faulty seat belts were to blame for the deaths of his wife and sister-in-law. The suit was settled for an undisclosed sum.

Seven members of the extended Mendoza family were returning Sunday, Dec. 29, 2002, to their homes in Houston from a Christmas visit to Mexico when their 1996 Chrysler Town & Country minivan struck a culvert, flipped end-to-nose and then rolled. The accident occurred on U.S. Highway 59, just west of Beeville, Texas.

In the vehicle were Martin Mendoza, 37, the driver, his wife, Denise, 34, and their children Daniel, 15, and Amy, 8; also Martin's brother, Jose, 40, his wife, Maria, 38, and their son, Hector, 16.

All had their seat belts buckled. However, all the belts except that of Jose, in the front passenger seat, unlatched. Martin was hurled into the windshield and fell between the two front seats. Denise and Maria, who were in the middle captain's chairs, and all three children, who were riding in the rear seat, were ejected from the vehicle.

Denise died instantly. Maria was fatally injured, and died on January 8, 2003. All three children were seriously injured. Amy received numerous fractures. Hector remains paralyzed.

The families filed a lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler in the 157th Judicial District, Harris County (Houston) Texas. The lawsuit accused DaimlerChrysler of negligence in the manufacture of the defective Gen3 seatbelt.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8645 Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8645
"When you make it harder for average people to discover the truth and punish wrongdoing, you no longer have justice for all," said Yvonne Moran, of Sinton, TX. Moran testified before the Texas House Committee on Civil Practices, which is hearing proposals that would sharply limit access to the legal system by victims of dangerous products.

A Corpus Christi jury in 2000 found that the seat belt buckle on Bart Moran's 1997 Dodge minivan was defective in its design and responsible for his death in a low-speed rollover on December 17, 1996, in Corpus Christi. Yvonne and her daughter won a $6.7 million court award from DaimlerChrysler and the seatbelt manufacturer. The case is on appeal.

"I have been working since Bart's death to alert consumers to this defective seat belt, and to get Chrysler to recall these belts and to stop installing them in their cars. Without my court case, and the evidence of wrongdoing it provided, I wouldn't be here today to warn people about this defective product. I would be just another victim, powerless to find the truth, " Moran said.

At least 15 deaths and 18 serious injuries have been attributed to accidental unlatchings of these seat belts, known as the Gen3, Moran said. She said a web site set up to alert consumers of the danger has collected nearly 140 reports of accidental unlatchings from people all over the country. Many of these reports involve the release of Gen3 seat belts from around infant and child car seats, she said.

"I never expected to find myself in this situation. No one does. But when you do, you discover that certain rights are so precious. For me - and I hope for the people who hear my message today - the ability to take full advantage of the legal system to right a wrong is one of the most precious.

"Please don't help silence the voice of average citizens," Moran told committee members.

More than 14 million DaimlerChrysler vehicles including all minivans produced since 1994 are known to be equipped with Gen3 seat belts. According to evidence compiled in the Moran case, Chrysler has known since at least 1996 that the Gen3 seat belt buckle has a tendency to come unlatched during vehicle crashes and that the buckle consistently fails a standard industry test for accidental release.

Nearly a year ago, the Washington, D.C.-based consumer group, Center for Auto Safety called on Chrysler to initiate a voluntary recall of all vehicles equipped with the Gen3 buckle and replace them with a safer design. The request was made after a nationally televised news program showed the Gen3 buckle failing a test for accidental unlatching conducted by an independent testing laboratory "100 per cent of the time."

The Gen3 buckle is distinguished by a button that protrudes significantly beyond the button cover, enough so that a loose object or flailing arms during a roll-over crash can unlatch it by striking it. In other buckles, the buttons are flusher with the button cover and must be depressed below the cover to unlatch.

Depositions in the Moran lawsuit showed Chrysler engineers testified that after viewing crash tests of the 1998 Dodge Durango and Dodge Dakota that appeared to show safety belts releasing accidentally, they recommended upgrading to the newer Gen4 seat belt buckle in these models in 1999.

Chrysler began installing Gen4 seat belt buckles in the front seats of its minivans starting with 2000 year models, but has retained Gen3 buckles in the two rear seats. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/seatbelt_defects Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/seatbelt_defects Seatbelt Defects Seatbelts play an important role in passenger protection during accidents. Properly designed seatbelts should restrain the occupant by stopping ejection and decreasing the passenger’s movement within the vehicle during a crash. Seatbelt defects can result in death and serious injuries.

More than 100 million cars in America have seatbelts with the release button on the front face of the buckle. In some rollovers, frontal collisions and side impacts, the release mechanism can be disengaged when the back of the buckle hits part of the seat structure or of the human body. Manufacturers are reluctant to admit the existence of this defect. However, in Malone v. General Motors, crash tests videos were introduced into evidence which demonstrated seatbelt unlatching in internal tests conducted by General Motors.

Over the last several years, there have been several landmark cases against Japanese and American automobile manufacturers pertaining to this defect. During impact, the release of the seatbelt happens as a result of force or energy being applied to the back of the buckle in the form of the forward movement of the occupant into the buckle. When the initial energy is transformed into the spring of the buckle, it releases the tension on the latch plate, allowing it to come open.

When this happens, the occupant is then as if he wasn’t belted at all. Relatively low forces during a wreck can cause the button to depress, permitting the latch plate to be free.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective seatbelt, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified product liability attorney.]]>