Toyota Motor Corporation has received another notice of a lawsuit against it for issuance of dangerous products. Unmi Suk Chung is claiming that in 2008 her 2004 RX330 Lexus began to accelerate on the 10 Freeway in Los Angeles without her prompting it to and despite all her efforts to brake the car. The car reached a speed of 80 mph before crashing into the Overland Avenue offramp, causing it to flip over, killing a backseat passenger. Chung and another passenger were also injured in the accident.  

This lawsuit comes as the felony vehicular manslaughter charge against Chung was dropped by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. It was believed that the recent press against Toyota and problems with sudden-acceleration would make it difficult to win a conviction in her case.  

Last year Toyota recalled millions of vehicles to repair gas pedals and floor mats that it stated were the cause of sudden-acceleration in several models of its auto line.  

Have questions about a product liability case?  Contact us to speak with a Los Angeles personal injury lawyer.

A Northern California woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against General Motors Corporation after she sustained a serious head injury during an accident.

The victim, Wendy Leigh Yates, was riding in the passenger seat of a Chevy Tahoe when the SUV was rear-ended by another vehicle. As a result of the impact, Yates' seat collapsed backward, causing her to slide back and hit her head on the rear passenger compartment. As a result of the accident, Yates suffered multiple fractures to her skill that led to permanent injury and seizures.

In her lawsuit, filed against both General Motors and Sexton Chevrolet of Manteca, the dealership where she purchased the car, Yates claims both entities are liable for her injuries. Yates claims that the Tahoe had both a design and manufacturing defect that made the vehicle inherently unsafe, and that GM knowingly sold a defective vehicle to consumers and failed to warn them of the safety risks. Yates is also claiming that GM knew, or should have known, that the defect would cause injury in a relatively low-impact accident, and that GM’s own footage shows the seats can fail during a collision, causing the passenger to fall back and hit their head. Yate’s suit also maintains that GM’s testing showed that the seat belt was not effective in holding the occupant in place when the seat collapsed.

Yates is seeking an undisclosed amount for medical bills, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and economic damages. She is also seeking compensation for loss of consortium of behalf of her husband.

It seems as if every day another vehicle maker or model is defective, posing serious risk of injury or death to consumers. If you have suffered an injury as a result of a defect with your vehicle, a Ventura County personal injury lawyer can help. Contact the Law Offices of Gerald L. Marcus today at (888) 203-PAIN to arrange a consultation to discuss your case and what options are available to you.

The latest vehicle model to be included in Toyota’s massive recall is the 2010 Prius.

Toyota is recalling approximately 270,000 Priuses in both the United States and Japan after receiving countless reports of consumers experiencing trouble with the brakes.

The recall only includes the third generation Prius, which was launched in May 2009. Since the 2010 model went on the market, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Transportation Department’s safety agency have received 124 complaints regarding the brakes, and 4 reports of crashes.

One of the things the transportation department will be investigating is whether or not there is a momentary loss of braking capability when driving over uneven roads or surfaces, such as bumps and potholes.

Toyota has supposedly identified the problem with the anti-lock brake system in the cars, saying it relates to the fact the vehicles are a gas-electric hybrid.

“When the car moves on a bumpy or slippery surface, a driver can feel a pause in the braking when the vehicle switches between the traditional hydraulic brakes and the electronically operated braking system. The brakes work if the driver keeps pushing the pedal,” said a Toyota spokesperson.

The Law Office of Gerald L. Marcus is committed to helping victims of auto accidents recover the compensation they need to cover their medical bills, lost wages, and property damage. If you have suffered an injury in an accident caused by a faulty brake system, whether in a Prius or another vehicle, you should speak with a knowledgeable Santa Clarita personal injury attorney about your legal rights and options. If you’re interested in arranging a free consultation to discuss filing a claim, please contact the Law Office of Gerald L. Marcus today by calling (888) 203-PAIN!

A California woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against Pepsico, Inc., Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., Metal Container Corporation, and New Albertson’s Inc. after sustaining multiple injuries, including one to her left eye that has caused her to go nearly blind.

Lynda Ryan claims she purchased a 12-pack of Diet Pepsi from an Albertson’s in Blyth. She claims that a can exploded as she was trying to open it, causing the tab on top of the can to fly off and hit her in the eye. Because the tap was traveling at such a high speed, Ryan suffered catastrophic damage to her eye that has resulted in nearly 100% vision loss.

According to the lawsuit, Ryan did not excessively shake or do anything abnormal to the can prior to opening it, although it had been in an ice chest in her car for several days.  However, Ryan did not think it would be a problem since she already consumed more than half the pack, which had been in her car ever since she bought it.

Ryan claims that before she could even finishing removing the tab, the can exploded, causing the top to detach and fly into her eye.  

Ryan’s attorney argued that the defendants should have known the can was inherently defective in both the design and manufacturing of the container. Her attorney also argued that the companies knowingly used cheaper, thinner materials that could unexpectedly break under normal usage by a customer. Ryan’s attorney is alleging the company did this in an effort to save money, which essentially has them putting profits over consumer safety.

Ryan is seeking economic damages for ongoing medical expenses, loss of income, and damages for permanent pain, suffering, disfigurement, and mental anguish.