Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 3, 2010

Recall of Dangerous, Defective Toyota and Lexus Vehicles Due to Wrongful Death, Serious Injuries, and Safety Risk to Public

Yesterday the United States Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood warned owners of recalled Toyotas to immediately stop driving their vehicles and take them into the Toyota dealership for immediate repair.

Mr. LaHood testified before Congress that Toyota was slow to address the safety problems with its gas pedals and it took pressure from the U.S. government that forced Toyotal to recall millions of its vehicles.

LaHood described Toyota as being “a little safety deaf” during the investigation and reported that Toyota was so resistant that it took federal safety officials from the U.S. government travelling to Japan to “wake them up” to the very seriousness of the danger.

Lahood further reported to Congress that the recall occurred because of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal government agency that worked to protect consumers from these dangerous vehicles by meeting with the top officials of Toyota in Japan.

LaHood also stated that the U.S. government considered civil penalties to Toyota but would not provide specifics. Former NHTSA administrator Joan Claybrook said Toyota has been resistant to regulation for a long time and been extremely secretive.

On Monday Toyota apologized about the problem and announced a repair which will insert a steel piece into the gas pedal to resolve excess friction that can cause the pedal to become stuck.

Federal data show these complaints against Toyota have doubled last year alone.
A government survey of Lexus owners found dozens of reports owners pressing hard on the brakes but failing to stop the sudden acceleration of their vehicles. This led to a Toyotal recall for 55,000 Lexus vehicles in 2007. Then in August a California Highway Patrol officer and his family were killed in a high-speed crash aboard a 2009 Lexus ES350 which hit speeds exceeding 120 mph, struck another SUV vehicle, drove off an embankment, rolled several times, and exploded in flames while a family member was calling 911.

Since that time, there are increasing reports of runaway acceleration Toyota and Lexus vehicles not on the recall list. In October, Toyota recalled more than 4 million vehicles and the recall has since grown to more than 5 million vehicles. Congress has now launched an investigation into the risk to the public and federal safety officials are widening their investigation of Toyota’s sticky gas pedals.

In Georgia, Toyota manufacturers would be held strictly liable for claims in these defective product actions. The law in Georgia seeks to protect the consumer by shifting the burden of the loss to the wrongdoer, i.e. the manufacturer of the defective product that caused the injuries. The essential elements of this legal claim are: first, the manufacture of the product (Toyota manufactured the cars); second, a defective product (the vehicles are in fact defective hence the recalls); third, an injury to a natural person proximately caused by the defect (multiple Toyota owners suffered injuries due to this defect); fourth, a sale of the product as a new product (Toyota dealers sold these new vehicles off their dealership lots); and fifth, the existence of the defect at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control (the defect was present when Toyota sold the car to consumers.)
Continue reading →

Published on: January 25, 2010

Accord and Satisfaction: Cashing A Check In Georgia With Paid In Full Written On It

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Naturally, when someone owes you money and sends you a check for less than the amount owed, many people feel that they should be able to cash the check and still collect the rest of the money owed to them. But what if you were sent a check that said “paid in full” (or something to that effect), and you cashed it? Could you still collect the rest of the money you’re owed? In Georgia, the answer is tricky, and you need a good lawyer to help you deal with this situation.

Briefly, if you cash a check for less than the amount owed to you and that check has “paid in full” written on it, you do not necessarily lose your right to the rest of your owed money. Several factors come into play. For example, do the facts of your case demonstrate that you and the other party disagree about the amount owed? If the answer is yes, and you cash a check for less than the amount owed to you, then you may have extinguished your legal right to the rest of your money, even if the check does not have conditional language such as paid in full written on it.

To the contrary, if no dispute exists, then cashing a check that is for less than the amount owed to you may not extinguish your legal right to the rest of your money, even if the check has conditional language such as paid in full written on it.

As said, the situation can be complex and involves much more than the above-mentioned scenarios. The facts of your case as applied to Georgia law will determine the claims you have against the other party.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 25, 2010

Warner Robins Automobile Accident Injures Passengers

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Warner Robins police reported that 19 year old Jabrial Odeal Adams rolled his car and was found walking near the scene of the accident around 12:15 a.m. this past Sunday.

Three passengers were all at the scene of the accident when police arrived: 18-year-old Earrion Down and 26-year-old Elvina Dowl, both of Warner Robins, and 18-year-old Darlessa West of Cochran. Elvina Dowl suffered a concussion and cuts on her face and was taken to the hospital. West and Earrion Dowl were treated at the scene and released.

Generally, under Georgia law, a typical automobile liability policy will require the insurance company to pay for any damages the insured driver would be legally obligated to pay as damages for bodily injury that results from the use of his insured automobile.

Injuries covered under an automobile liability policy include the range of physical and mental injuries compensable. Under the tort law of the state of Georgia this includes bodily harm, mental distress, lost wages, medical expenses, and general damages for pain and suffering.

The passengers in Sunday’s accident are no doubt lucky to be alive after experiencing a rollover accident. One of the most dangerous types of injuries that are often encountered in these types of rollover automobile accidents are traumatic brain injuries or TBI. Traumatic brain injuries occur when there is a sudden physical force to the head such as in an automobile rollover. There are over one million traumatic brain injuries that are suffered each year alone, many of them turning fatal or having irreversible effects.

While traumatic brain injuries often happen with slip and falls, the second largest amount are made up from motor vehicle accidents. Additionally, teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 suffer the highest risk of receiving a traumatic brain injury. Many experts believe the correlation occurs because it happens to be the age when many young people begin to drive.

However, this correlation between traumatic brain injury and young drivers can often be avoided with proper education and safe driving habits. We need to make certain that our young people in Georgia are trained to avoid texting, speeding, alcohol, and drug use while driving.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 22, 2010

Civil Rights Law Protects Against Police Brutality and Misconduct

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Two New York Officers were suspended recently when a videotape surfaced displaying them beating a handcuffed suspect. The video was shot by a witness looking out an apartment window in the Bronx on January 5th.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he decided to suspend the officers as soon as he viewed the video: “We simply are never going to tolerate something like that,” Kelly said. “We are going to take swift and firm action when we see activities of that nature.”

A federal statute known as Section 1983 is one of the main civil rights laws victims of police brutality and misconduct rely upon. This law was first passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was intended to protect African Americans from vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. It is now called Section 1983 because that is where it is located within the United States Code. Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 22, 2010

Toyota Recall Due To Defective Vehicles Causing Injuries

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Toyota, has just announced a recall of 2.3 million vehicles to correct sticking accelerator pedals. This is a very serious problem that has caused very tragic accidents including deaths.

One of the most horrific incidents occurred the day after Christmas in Texas, when a 2008 Toyota sped off the road, through a fence, and landed upside down in a pond killing the driver and passengers inside. In another case, a Toyota New Jersey owner drove all the way back to his local dealer with his car speeding out of control even though his foot was not touching the gas pedal.

Safety analysts have pointed to electronic defects in the vehicles and multiple other Toyota owners have made similar claims about electronic problems in their cars over the last few years even though Toyota originally dismissed them as unfounded. Continued reports of runaway Toyotas since the original November recall have called into question the company’s fierce denials.

But now Toyota has acknowledged a “sticking accelerator problem” in its vehicles and announced the latest recall, which affects Camrys from 2007 to 2010, the RAV4, Corolla, and Matrix models from 2009 and 2010, the 2007 to 2010 Tundra and the 2008 to 2010 Sequoias, Avalons from model years 2005 to 2010, and the 2010 Highlander. Approximately 1.7 million of the vehicles cited are also affected by the earlier recall.

In Georgia, Toyota manufacturers would be held strictly liable in products liability torts action. Georgia lawmakers did this in order to protect the consumer by shifting the burden of the loss to the wrongdoer, i.e. the manufacturer of the defective product that caused the injuries. The essential elements of this tort action are: first, the manufacture of the product (Toyota manufactured the cars); second, a defective product (the vehicles are in fact defective hence the recalls); third, an injury to a natural person proximately caused by the defect (multiple Toyota owners suffered injuries due to this defect); fourth, a sale of the product as a new product (Toyota dealers sold these new vehicles off their dealership lots); and fifth, the existence of the defect at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control (the defect was present when Toyota sold the car to consumers.)
Continue reading →

Published on: January 16, 2010

Drug Recall for Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, Rolaids

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Tylenol, Motrin and Benadryl and several other over the counter drugs have been recalled after complaints of the pills having an unusual mildew odor leading to gastrointestinal problems. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has cracked down on the manufacturer Johnson and Johnson for not responding to these complaints and for a delay in resolving the issue that was first exposed in 2008. Consequently the FDA is giving the company 15 days to correct the problem as well as prevent future violations in addition to warning them of legal action, sanctions, and injunctions.

Recalled products include: Benedryl allergy ultratab tablets, junior strength Motrin, children’s Tylenol grape meltaway tablets, extra strength Tylenol, extra strength Tylenol rapid release gelcaps, extra strength Tylenol PM geltabs, Motrin caplets, extra strength Rolaids fresh mint tablets, extra strength Tylenol rapid release gelcaps, and St. Joseph Aspirin chewable orange tablets.

Consumers can also call 1-888-222-6036 or log on to www.mcneilproductrecall.com in addition to calling their health care provider if they have any concerns.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 14, 2010

International Human Rights and Grady Hospital in Atlanta

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Recently, Williams Oinonen LLC LLC wrote a request for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission on behalf of Grady Hospital dialysis patients.

The international human rights petition resulted in the Commission officially contacting the U.S. government and requesting that the U.S. respond to the petitioners’ allegations in addition to addressing the issue of medical treatment necessary for their survival. The Commission’s action represents the first step in deciding whether to grant precautionary measures. The decision should be made some time soon.

The petition was officially submitted by Williams Oinonen LLC LLC and Lindsay R.M. Jones. Mr. Jones who is lead counsel for the Grady patients, whose U.S. court case is currently to be submitted for appeal.

Grady dialysis patients lives are threatened due to the hospital attempting to deny the rights of the patients in accordance with a legally binding contract. The patients, third party beneficiaries to a legally binding contract, were denied the informed consent they are entitled to by law when Grady representatives told the patients that leaving the state was their only option. Moreover, Grady implored the patients to sign an agreement that reduced their contactual right of one year of treatment to three months.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 14, 2010

Fired Unclassified Government Employees: Protecting Your Name And Reputation In Georgia

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Protecting your name and reputation means a lot, especially in the world of government jobs where employment files are kept and shared on mostly all employees. If a government employee’s employment file has something negative regarding her name and reputation, she may find it impossible to get another government job upon being fired. In this respect, the government-employment world is slightly different than the private-sector world where, for example, a person may hide past employers and reasons for dismissal.

So, in Georgia, what does an unclassified government employee do when he or she is fired and his or her reputation has been damaged during the termination process?

Classified employees can be terminated. But these type of employees generally have the right to appeal the reason(s) for their termination. That means that classified employees generally have privy to a more complete administrative process that allows them to fight more forcefully against their termination and thus protect their name and reputation. However, unclassified employees are, generally, not so fortunate.

Once an unclassified employee is terminated, the employee generally cannot appeal the decision. So what can you do, if you are terminated, and during the termination process things are said about you that damage your reputation and chances to get another government job? Unclassified employees may have an option that protects their name and reputation.

The option is called a “name clearing hearing.” The idea behind this type of hearing is that damage done to a government employee’s reputation qualifies as a “liberty interest.” Essentially that means that you “may” be entitled to procedural due process, a hearing regarding the matter that has affected your name and reputation.

There are several factors that a lawyer must examine to ensure that a client may seek this remedy. Of those factors, here are six (6): (1) A false statement must have been made; (2) that statement must have been of a “stigmatizing nature” and related to (3) the discharge of the government employee; (4) the statement must have been made public by (5) the government employer; and (6) the discharged employee must not have had a meaningful opportunity to clear his or her name. Although these are not all the factors that will determine whether you are entitled to a name clearing hearing, they represent a good starting point, for the analysis of your case.

Of the above-mentioned six (6) criteria, point six may prove to be the most difficult. For example, if the unclassified employee was given an opportunity to provide a statement/report in his or her defense, did she have a meaningful opportunity to clear her name? This question and others are best suited for an experienced attorney in this area.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 12, 2010

Employment Law and Age Discrimination: Have You Experienced Retaliation In Georgia?

By Williams Oinonen LLC

Age discrimination is a “hot” topic right now due to a recent Supreme Court case, which some members of Congress are trying to combat with proposed legislation. Neither the case or the proposed legislation changes some general points you should consider.

So what can you do if you’ve experienced age discrimination? One of the first responses to that question is, what type of age discrimination did you experience? That will affect which federal law applies to your case and importantly, which agency you should file your complaint with. For example, you may be protected by the Age Discrimination Act (“ADA”), which applies to person of all ages. However the ADA does not apply to employment situations. Age discrimination related to your employment may be protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and only applies to people aged 40 and over. The Office of Civil Rights handles ADA complaints, while the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission handles ADEA complaint.

Be mindful that before an employee can sue his or her employer in court, after filing a complaint with the appropriate federal agency, you must wait for the agency to issue a “right to sue letter,” which will entitle you to sue, within a specified period of time, an employer in court. You can request a right to sue letter at anytime.

In court, if an employee has experienced anything less than age discrimination related to hiring and firing, courts have frequently found that he must prove that the discrimination she experienced was a “materially adverse employment action.” What is materially adverse is tricky. For example, merely being transferred to another department where there is a minor discrepancy in working conditions, work hours, and previous pay may not be enough. The facts of your case are vital.

In addition, after an employee complains formally or informally to their employer about feeling discriminated upon because of age, employees often experience retaliation. Employer retaliation comes in many forms: verbal abuse; threatening emails; exclusion; unjustified demotions; groundless accusations that affect an employees reputation; and unsubstantiated suspensions without pay and other disciplinary actions, amongst other things. Sometimes employer retaliation becomes so severe that an employee experiences what is known as “constructive discharge” from their job.

Simply, constructive discharge is an environment that would compel any reasonable person to resign or consider resigning. Proving constructive discharge is not so simple, however, and requires being able to obtain essential information related to the hostile climate in which you were working in. In today’s technological age, that information involves more than witness testimony. A good lawyer should understand electronic discovery, how to get the emails, text messages, and other electronically transmitted information that can more forcefully argue your case.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 11, 2010

Poisonous Toys From China Sicken More Children

By Williams Oinonen LLC

197915236_0f2e428159
Several years ago a huge international scandal erupted surrounding the Chinese exporting lead contaminated toys to forty countries, sickening children from around the world who were exposed to the dangerous poisonous products.

You may remember the American toy company Mattel ended up having to recall over 1.5 million Chinese toys because of lead hazards. Unfortunately, since that big scandal several years ago, toy manufacturers from China have sought to replace lead from their products with an equally cheap and dangerous product called cadmium—a carcinogen that hinders brain development in young children who can suffer exposure to the poison just by putting the toys in their mouths.

Just yesterday the Associated Press reported that federal and state investigators have conducted investigations on the use of cadmium which have been found in children’s jewelry items imported from China in U.S. stores that included pendants from three Flip Flop bracelets and four “The Princess and The Frog” necklaces bought at Walmart and two charms on a “Best Friends” bracelet bought at the jewelry chain Claire’s.

Continue reading →

GEORGIA INJURY LAWYER