As a Modesto personal injury lawyer, this writer was all ears when he was informed that Toyota was settling a class action lawsuit for 1.1 billion dollars. The settlement may be the largest ever against an automaker according to attorneys representing some of the plaintiff’s. A U.S. judge in Santa Ana, California granted preliminary approval on December 28, 2012 to Toyota’s $1.1 billion settlement of a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by Toyota owners who claimed they lost value on their cars due to unexpected, sudden and unintended acceleration. U.S. District Judge James Selna has scheduled a hearing in June of 2013 regarding the final approval of this settlement.

Millions Of Automobiles Covered
According to class action court papers there are over millions of Toyota brand automobiles covered by the settlement, including Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles sold in the United States between 1998 to 2010. Toyota has maintained in press releases previously and continue to maintain that actual gas pedal electronics are not at fault, but blame poor fitting floor mats. In addition, a study commissioned by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and NASA found no link between alleged reports of unintended acceleration and Toyota’s gas peddle electronics.

Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Cases Not Included

This settlement does not affect the over 300 wrongful death and personal injury claims stemming from allegations of sudden acceleration which caused injury or death to persons. This writer of this blog although fascinated by the billion dollar settlement by Toyota is more interested in the outcome of the 300 plus personal injury lawsuits against Toyota.

The lawsuits against Toyota were consolidated in federal court and put into one of two categories (1) economic loss from falling car value and (2) wrongful death or personal injury claims. The settlement deals only with the first category and not the wrongful death or personal injury claims. Those other claims are still moving forward through the court system.

Since Toyota is not making an admissions of wrongdoing related to this issue, these lawsuits are likely to proceed, unless Toyota settles the personal injury suits, which this writer is doubtful. Toyota will most likely want a jury to decide actual liability related to the wrongful death and personal injury portions of the lawsuits.

As readers of this blog are familiar, in the California Supreme Court case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 57, made it easier for injured parties to recover for products that cause injury to them. Previous to this case, the plaintiff had to prove that the product was negligently produced in order to recover for damages caused by a product. This case makes manufacturer’s of products strictly liable for injuries cased by their products. Plaintiff’s who are residents of California will be arguing for the strict liability rules for products should be applied to their lawsuits against Toyota.

It’s not going to be an easy win for plaintiff’s in the personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiff’s still have the burden of proof to prove that the product is in fact defective which in turn caused the injury or death. This writer assumes there will be experts from both sides, the plaintiff and Toyota regarding the defect or lack of defect in the Toyota gas pedal. In addition, Toyota will surely argue that their product did not cause the injury at all and that it was caused by human error or other cause which the jury could find Toyota not liable.

If found liable, it could prove to be very costly for Toyota. If not found liable, the Toyota can put this issue behind them and move forward. The problem is the legal battle is far from over and the issue of liability will not be settled anytime soon.

If the gas pedal gets stuck or unexpectedly accelerates you should

• Shift the transmission to neutral
• Turn off the ignition switch
• Apply the brakes and pull over

If you, a family member or a loved one has been injured due to an defective product or car, you can contact the The Bogan Law Firm, A Professional Corporation for a confidential consultation.

Dog Statistics

According to a 2011-2012 APPA National Pet Owners Survey 62% of U.S. households own a pet. Of those homes with pets, there are 46.3 million homes in the United States with a least one dog. The Centers for Disease Control reports that more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. The CDC also reveals that of those 4.7 million people, 800,000 of them seek medical treatment for those bites and half of those seeking treatment are children. There are more than 386,000 people that require medical treatment in an emergency room from dog bite injuries. Sadly, 16 people die each year from dog bites in the United States. Children are the most at risk for injury, specifically those children between the ages of 5 to 9. About 2/3 of the injuries to children ages 4 and younger are to the head and neck region.

Insurance Payouts

According to a press release by State Farm Insurance, one of the nation’s largest home insurers, they paid more than $109 million on about 3,800 dog bite claims nationwide in 2011. The Insurance Information Institute (III) estimates that nearly $479 million in dog bite claims were paid by all insurance companies in 2011. In California alone there were 527 State Farm dog bite claims and 20.3 million dollars in payouts.

California Strict Liability Law

Under the scenario where the child is bitten by a dog while trick or treating, the dog owner is liable for any injuries caused by the dog. Under California Civil Code § 3342 a dog owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog. That means that even when the dog is normally gentle and calm, when that calm easy going dog bites someone, the owner is on the hook for the damages caused by their dog. There are few exeptions and limited defenses. But at the end of the day, the dog owner would be liable if their dog bit a trick or treater, and that is the point of this blog post.

Halloween Tips For Dog Owners

• Keep dogs indoors and away from the front door where trick or treaters knock
• If you want to have your dog near the door to greet visitors, keep them on leash
• Keep a firm grip on the leash; many dogs are frightened by people in costumes
• Many dogs will run after trick-or-treaters so be sure to put up a gate to prevent escape
• Place your dog in a quiet room especially if you dog is aggressive or is anxious
• If the animal is very high-strung, consult your vet about tranquilizing for the night
• Give the dog a new chew toy to keep them occupied
• Play music or leave a TV or radio playing in the dog’s room to help mask Halloween sounds
• Close drapes so that the dog does not see people coming and going through the window
• Try to watch and anticipate trick or treaters so they don’t ring your door bell or knock on the door

Tips For Trick or Treaters

In addition from taking precautions at home to prevent your dog from biting trick or treaters, it is equally important that you take precautions to prevent dogs from biting your own children. The main thing to remember is that Halloween can make dogs unpredictable so children should be aware of that fact. Here are some additional tips:

• Teach children never to run from a dog who approaches them, especially when they have a Halloween costume on
• Carry both a flashlight and pepper spray while out with children trick or treating
• Never let children trick or treat without a responsible adult
• Teach children never to walk into someone’s home on Halloween no matter how inviting

Following the tips listed in the article are helpful hints that can keep your dog and your children safe. If you or someone you know is bitten by a dog, whether on Halloween or not, the bite victim should immediately seek medical attention. After seeking medical treatment the bite victim or their family should contact Modesto dog bite attorney Tai C. Bogan at The Bogan Law Firm, A Professional Corporation for aggressive representation.

Although self-driving Google cars are very exciting, our Modesto car accident law offices are more concerned about the liability aspects of such a car. This article focuses on the legal issues of this technology. Who is liable for an accident involving a self driving car?

Negligence
Self driving cars will still have the ability of having the operator take over the controls. So if the other driver was negligent, for example there was human error as the cause of the accident, then clearly the injured party can recover for their injury. Human error is the number one cause for auto accidents in California and the rest of the United States. But what if the accident in one of these self-driving cars was not human error, but manufacture defect? Who is liable then?

Products Liability

Negligence Theory (OLD)

Many years ago the law was that you had to have privity of contract to sue for a defect in a product. For example if you were in Modesto, California and you purchased a ACME lawnmower from the local hardware store and that lawnmower exploded and injured to you, then you could not sue ACME lawnmower company. Why? Because you did not contract directly with ACME to buy the mower, you bought it from a third party. Interesting right? Well now you can forget that concept because it is no longer the way things are done.

The first change in the law came with the famous New York case n the case MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050. In MacPherson, the plaintiff bought a Buick car from the local dealer. When driving the car’s wood wheel broke and obvioulsy made the car wreck. MacPherson sued the manufacter of the car, Buick. Buick argued that there was no privity of contract directly with MacPherson and therefore they could not be sued. That argument was rejected not only did the court rule that Buick had a duty to inspect the wheel, which they didn’t, but they were liable for the damages caused by their defective product, i.e the Buick car. Because of this case you can sue a manufacture of a product even though you did not buy it directly from the manufacturer. In fact, if you are a third party injured because of a defective product you can sue as well.

Strict Liability

Under MacPherson the plaintiff (the injured person) still had to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer in order to recover damages. Fast forward from 1916 to 1963 and travel from New York to California. The California Supreme Court, in the case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 57, removed the requirement that the plaintiff prove negligence in order to recover damages from a manufacturer of a defective product. This case welcomed the theory of strict liability for products produced. That means that if someone is injured by a defective product the manufacturer can be found liable even if the manufacturer was not negligent in producing the product.

Liability Exceptions

The California legislature has not decided whether to exempt manufacturers of liability for cars produced that are self-driving cars. The most recent legislation at the time of this article is California Senate Bill 1298, introduced by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima). The bill authorizes testing of the self-driving vehicle. Our neighbor to the east, Nevada has issued such an exemption of manufacturer liability. In Nevada for example the “operator” of the car is liable for damages caused by the self-driving car. The “operator” is liable even when it was not operator error that caused the accident. The “operator” is the person who commands or tells the car to drive.

Conclusion

It is still an open question as to whether the manufacturer of a self-driving car would be liable for an accident caused by product liability. It is almost certain that an exclusion to liability will be debated by the California Legislature, but it is unsure how the legislature will vote on that issue. Even if strict liability remains the products liability standard in California, Google or other companies will continue to develop this technology because the good from the technology will outweigh the bad. Human error will virtually be eliminated from the equation, which contribute for almost all car accidents currently. This technology will cut down on accidents and on balance it is better than what we have now.