The Reeves Law Group

General Motors is bracing itself for a 49 state class action lawsuit that’s expected to be worth anywhere from $80 million to $150 million for car owners.

In the case of plaintiff’s attorneys, the settlements could be worth up to $16.5 million.

According to Eric Gibbs, a class action attorney in San Francisco, he was part of a group of plaintiff attorneys who were preparing to go to trial late last year in the state of Missouri against GM, when the company decided they would agree to a nationwide group of consumer suits.

At least 20 million plaintiffs were expected to be involved in the settlement. Most people here are supposed to have made repairs that fell between $600 and $900.

The class action lawsuit has its beginnings in the lawsuit field by California and Missouri lawyers against GM claiming that the coolant that the automaker used in its vehicles was causing performance problems. The suits claimed violation of unfair business practices statutes and breach of warranty. All the cases claimed that the defective product was Dex-Cool, a coolant that GM began to use in 1995 model cars.

It wasn’t easy getting class certification of the lawsuits. The process was set off four years ago when an Alameda County Superior Court judge denied a class action settlement motion. In 2006, the plaintiffs again filed a motion to seek California class liability. That too was denied, but the judge said the plaintiffs could bring the motion again if they managed to find more evidence. This time plaintiffs came forward with stronger evidence including testimony from four expert witnesses. Class certification was granted.

The settlement does not cap the total amount to be paid by GM. Limits, however, have been set in other areas. There is a litigation expenses cap of $1.55 million, and court approved an attorney fee cap of $16.5 million. Plaintiff’s incentives will cap at about $140,000.

Other firms that worked on the case include Ram & Olson; Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll of Washington, D.C.; San Francisco’s Levy, and Kansas City’s Stueve Siegel Hanson.

There’s more recall trouble for Ford. This time the automaker is recalling 225,000 vehicles, and the problem is in the wiring in the vehicle. Apparently, the wiring is defective, and doesn’t stop fuses from shorting out while in use. So far, no accidents or injuries have been reported because of this wiring problem, but we should not take that to assume that the danger from these wiring defects is negligible or no cause for worry.

Ford and recalls are hardly a new topic, but this particular recall has evinced more interest than usual. These vehicles were part of an earlier recall that was announced because of a potentially dangerous cruise control switch defect. At least 9.5 million cars, sports utility vehicles, and light trucks were recalled by Ford in 1999, after defects in its cruise control switches were linked to engine fires. The vehicles were repaired and then fitted in with new wiring harnesses. As it turns out now, it’s these wiring harnesses that are causing new problems in the vehicles.

Trust Ford to come up with a solution for one defect that goes right out and causes more problems. It’s not clear if there have been studies done on this, but this might be the first time that an auto company has actually recalled vehicles that were already recalled before.

There’s more bad news for Ford owners out there. According to Consumer Affairs, the company hasn’t been able to buy or replace parts of all the cars that were recalled. Initially Ford promised that they’d have all cruise control switch problems fixed by October 2007. October has come and gone and there are dealers all over the country still waiting for the spare parts from Ford. This is dangerous news for all those vehicles out there with faulty cruise control switches. The cruise control defect can cause a car to burst into flames even when it’s switched off.

Many reports from around the country have confirmed that houses were damaged after cars parked in the garage erupted in flames.

There’s worse news. According to Consumer Affairs, there could be up to 1.8 million cars and trucks out there with the defective cruise control switch. So grave is the danger that some Ford dealers now require customers to sign a liability waiver if they don’t intend to disconnect the switch. Try to figure this one out. Customers are asked to pay top dollar for the privilege of cruise control, and then are asked to either disconnect the switch because it could cause the car to burst into flames or sign a piece of paper absolving the company if the car burns, and takes the house and residents with it. Ford’s callousness and disregard for its customers has moved beyond a recall soap opera to potential class action lawsuit territory.

This latest defect in the cruise control vehicles was apparently only discovered when the company was conducting repairs on one of its own fleet. Vehicles affected by the recall include 1992 to 2003 model E-Series, and the 1993 to 1995 Ford Taurus SHO.

If you have been injured by a defective car part, you need the help of a top California personal injury lawyer. Contact an attorney at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Accountability and responsibility are finally catching up at Mitsubishi Motors Corporation. On Wednesday, the former president of the company, Katsuhiko Kawasoe, was found guilty of negligence and sentenced to three years in prison. The case relates to the death of a man in 2002 in an accident when his brakes failed to function. The vehicle was a Mitsubishi, and the defect was traced to a malfunctioning clutch system. The cars were recalled, but not before major damage had been done to the company’s credibility.

Three other company officials were also found guilty of failing to report defects that they knew could cause passengers serious injuries.

The Mitsubishi scandal – Japan’s version of the crisis that crippled Ford in the US – erupted in 2000, when Kawasoe, then the president, was forced to quit in disgrace after allegations that the company had kept reports of dozens of accidents involving its vehicles secret, and had let vehicles they knew were defective roll out the shop floor and into showrooms and people’s garages. Accident reports were kept in a secret locker, and everybody “in the know” decided it was best to maintain a conspiratorial silence about the lack of customer safety standards in the company, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Kawasoe seemed contrite enough at the trial saying he hoped the company – which slipped into financial ruin after the scandal – would do its best to uphold corporate governance. A little late in the day, Mr. Kawasoe.

The scandal also brought to light other trials. In one trial, in which a verdict was delivered in December, a court found quality control workers at the plant were negligent in the death of a housewife. The woman was walking on the street when a tire rolled off a Mitsubishi truck, and crushed her to death. In the other trial, three former company officials were charged with falsifying reports and failing to take measures to recall defective vehicles.

If you or a family member has been injured or killed due to a defective car part, you need the help of an experienced California personal injury lawyer. Contact an attorney at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

In the auto industry, it never rains, it pours. Towards the end of a year that has seen more than its fair share of car recalls, multi million dollar lawsuits against motor companies and some soiled reputations, comes another whopper of a downpour. This time it involves one company that has been normally regarded as having better than average safety standards when it comes to its vehicles.

A whistleblower at a Toyota/GM joint venture plant has alleged that managers at the plant frequently allowed cars with defects to go out in the market without being fixed. These defects include malfunctioning seat belts and brakes, defective headlights and faulty wheel alignment.

The treatment meted out to the woman, Katy Cameron, by Toyota, a company that’s normally acclaimed for its transparency, is shocking. According to her, she has been harassed by company managers to the point where she is currently under extreme stress and being treated for depression.

It was earlier insisted that none of these defects had been linked to an accident. Now it seems that might have been a matter of chance rather than an indication of the vehicle’s safety. Toyota is facing lawsuits in California relating to two accidents that might have been caused by its defects. In one of them, the family of a man who was killed when he was trapped in his seat belt during an engine fire, has filed a lawsuit against the company. The victim’s son claims that during an engine fire in his Toyota, while he was able to escape, he was unsuccessful in getting the seat belt off his father resulting in his death.

An accident like this is a terrible tragedy, and when seen in the context of managers at the plant, allowing cars with defects including broken seat belts to roll out of the shop floor, it crosses the line from being a tragedy to a heinous crime.

Toyota is sticking to its “we were not responsible” line, and says the facts should come out when the case proceeds to trial.

If you or a loved-one has been injured or killed as the result of a defective car, contact the California personal injury lawyers at The Reeves Law Group immediately for a free consultation.

Volkswagen Beetles – 1,000,000
Ford Motor Company – 3,600,000
Toyota – 533,124

No, these aren’t car production figures at some of the major auto makers these years. These are the number of vehicles that were recalled by these companies in 2007 which will soon end as something for a record year as far as auto recalls are concerned.

Most of the outrage this past year has been about the other major recalls of the year – million of toys recalled by companies like Mattel. But the auto industry has also reeled under the effect of vehicle recalls, and many like Ford have found that decades old reputations have been tarnished.

So, what have the recalls been about? Well, they’ve covered pretty much every part of a vehicle that can possibly malfunction which essentially is every part. Malfunctioning sensors that cause engines to die in the middle of a freeway, anti-lock brake modules that could burn, air bag sensors that could be disabled by a mixture of water with road salt – the list goes on. Seemingly small problems on the surface, but with big enough risks to cause auto makers to panic.

No other auto maker has been bitten by the recall bug as much as Ford, the company that continues to face lawsuits over its accident prone Explorer and its use of Firestone tires. The tires were responsible for at least 25 deaths and 50 injuries according to the NHTSA. And it’s not just consumer vehicle recalls Ford has grappled with. In March this year, the company recalled more than 100,000 Ford Police Interceptors after complaints that some of them were developing cracks in their wheel welds.

Ford is also known for some spectacularly poor compensation offered to users of its vehicles. This year, Ford users who complained about how their vehicle prices nosedived after all the scandal over the Explorer, were offered the princely settlement of a $500 voucher on future Explorer purchases that in effect puts more money in Ford’s coffers.

In the case of the Crown Police Interceptors, when cops complained that the design of the car made the gas tank dangerously prone to an explosion in the event of a rear end collision, Ford magnanimously provided shield kits to protect the gas tank in case of an accident. Where product liability is concerned, Ford really does seem to be the king of the roads.

If you have been injured or a loved-one has been killed as the result of a recalled product, contact the California personal injury and recalled products attorneys at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Not too many were willing to give Guadalupe Gomez the time of day when the 68-year-old insisted he tried in vain to control his car just before the accident that killed a San Jose, California man earlier this summer. As it turns out Gomez was telling the truth all along.  New investigations have pointed to a design defect in Gomez’s Toyota Camry that California Highway Patrol officials now say could have been the main factor in the crash.

On July 26, eyewitnesses reported seeing Gomez’s Camry speeding along on a crowded stretch of Interstate 280.  The car rear-ended another car before it smashed into a Honda Accord driven by 39-year-old Troy Edwin Johnson, a father of five. The Accord burst into flames, killing Johnson instantly.

In the days after the crash, Gomez insisted that he slammed on the brakes but the car wouldn’t slow down. The car was new, and it was his first experience with a push start ignition.

A new report by the California Highway Patrol confirms that Gomez was indeed right.  On investigation, they found that the Camry’s floor mat could possibly jam the gas pedal down, causing the car to speed forward. Investigators found evidence that Gomez had indeed tried to slow down the car, but had failed.  This defect in the Camry’s design was the one of the reasons cited by Toyota when they recalled 26,000 of these cars in September this year. 

This new twist in the tale has caused the California Highway Patrol to reconsider their earlier plan of recommending charging Gomez for vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.  Instead a report has been submitted to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office without a recommendation. 

The news must come as a relief to Gomez, who found no takers for his explanation soon after the fatal accident.  This accident also points to the tragic consequences when defective cars are let loose on the streets.

When an accident is caused by the defective design or manufacturing of a vehicle, the manufacturer can be held liable for damages to the injured party.  If you’ve been injured in an accident caused by a defective car, call the experienced California car accident lawyers at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.