Florida Injury Lawyers Blog

As Miami-Dade auto accident lawyers, we were saddened to read about an accident that killed a father and daughter who just happened to be nearby. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported May 24 on the accident that killed Robert Kane, 79, and his 51-year-old daughter Odetta Kane. Angela Stracar, 24, was driving past the Boca Isles South subdivision in West Boca when she lost control of her SUV and hit the sign for the subdivision. The crash flipped the SUV over onto the Kanes’ Cadillac as they drove home from picking up food for dinner. Both were wearing seat belts, but died at the scene, leaving Ena Kane, 75, without her husband and only child. Stracar was taken to the hospital in good condition. Authorities are waiting for the results of an intoxication test to decide whether charges will be filed.

Evidence of intoxication would go a long way toward explaining why Stracar lost control of her vehicle. However, regardless of whether Stracar was intoxicated, the description of this accident makes it sound a lot like it was her fault. Drunk or sober, reasonably careful drivers do not hit roadside signs. The fact that her vehicle flipped across the road also suggests that she may have hit the sign with some force. If Stracar was at fault for the accident, Ena Kane would be able to hold her legally and financially responsible for the deaths of her husband and son. Even if authorities decline to file charges against Stracar, Ena Kane would have the right to pursue justice through the civil courts, with the help of a West Palm Beach car crash attorney. That includes requesting fair financial compensation for the loss of her husband and daughter’s financial support, as well as their love, companionship and care.

It’s also worth noting that Stracar was driving an SUV -- a type of vehicle that remains substantially more likely than other vehicle types to roll over during ordinary driving maneuvers. SUVs have higher centers of gravity, which means it’s easier to tip them over. In some models, in fact, it’s possible for the tipping over to happen without the vehicle hitting an object or another vehicle -- during sudden swerving to avoid an obstacle, sudden braking or drifting onto uneven dirt surfaces. Rollovers are especially bad accidents because they can throw the people inside the vehicle around and out of the vehicle, causing serious head injuries, spinal injuries and death. As this article shows, they can also bring the entire weight of the SUV to bear on anything that happens to be in the way, such as another vehicle and its passengers. If Stracar’s SUV was so defectively designed that it rolled over when other vehicles would not have, Ena Kane may also have a defective product claim against its manufacturer.

Continue reading "Possibly Intoxicated Driver Flips Car Over, Killing Nearby Father and Daughter " »

As Fort Lauderdale defective products attorneys, we were saddened to see an article about a young Florida Highway Patrolman’s death. According to the Miami Herald, Patrick Ambroise, 35, was killed May 15 when his parked patrol car was rear-ended near the Okeechobee Road toll plaza on the Florida Turnpike. The 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor burst into flames, trapping Ambroise inside and killing him at the scene. The driver of the other vehicle, 19-year-old Jonathan Robert Garcia of Miramar, is hospitalized in stable but serious condition. Ambroise leaves behind a wife and two children, ages five years and three months, as well as a tight extended family. The FHP said the case is still under investigation and no charges have yet been filed.

The Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is made especially for police work and is among the most widely used police vehicles in North America. Its design is considered well suited for police work, with a large engine and a design that minimizes repair needs after minor accidents. However, it has also been criticized in the last two decades for allegedly being prone to catastrophic fires after rear-end accidents like this one. Consumer and law enforcement groups say the fuel tanks on Crown Victorias (including those sold to the public without police features) are placed within the cars’ “crush zone,” outside the rear axle. When someone hits the vehicle at high speed, critics say, that tank can rupture, allowing sparks to ignite a fuel fire. Since 2005, Ford has offered optional safety shields to keep the fuel tank from being punctured and automatic fire suppression systems. It was not reported whether Ambroise’s vehicle had these features.

Our Miami-Dade product defect lawyers are sorry to see any death caused by a product with a serious safety flaw. Consumers should be able to trust the products they buy to be reasonably safe -- especially with cars, which can be used as a deadly weapon. But it’s particularly alarming to see a possibly flawed product sold to law enforcement officers, whose job already carries high risks. Officers spend more time than the average person driving at high speeds -- in fact, Crown Victoria Police Interceptors are designed specifically for this job, with higher maximum speeds than other Crown Victorias. For this reason, it would make sense for Ford to consider high-speed accidents when placing the fuel tank, which is well known as a fire risk thanks to the 1970s Ford Pinto scandal. If it has not done so, especially after consumer groups began protesting, officers and families like Ambroise’s would have a strong case against it.

Continue reading "FHP Officer’s Death Raises New Questions About Ford Crown Victoria Safety" »

Our Fort Lauderdale product liability attorneys have followed the Toyota recall story with great interest. By now, nearly everyone who drives a Toyota knows that the automaker has issued multiple recalls, covering 8.5 million vehicles, because of a problem with unintended acceleration. Federal regulators have received numerous reports that late-model Toyota and Lexus vehicles suddenly accelerated for no reason, causing serious accidents leading to at least 34 deaths and many more injuries. Toyota and safety groups disagree about the source of the problem, which has led to a Congressional investigation. As part of that investigation, the automaker submitted documents, made public Feb. 21, bragging that it had convinced regulators to limit, stop or delay recalls and other safety moves.

The information comes from an internal presentation dated July 6, 2009 -- months before the unintended acceleration problem was widely known. The Los Angeles Times reported Feb. 22 that Washington executives prepared the document for the newly minted head of Toyota’s operations in the United States, Yoshimi Inaba. In it, they said they’d been able to save millions by:

• Negotiating a limited recall of floor mats in Camrys and Lexus ES sedans, in 2007. This allowed Toyota to avoid a larger investigation by federal regulators. Floor mats were the focus of the first of Toyota’s current recalls, and have been blamed for most unintended acceleration problems.
  
• Delaying the introduction of mandatory side-impact airbags.
  
• Delaying and watering down safety rules about sliding doors, electric shocks from hybrids and roof strength standards (which protect occupants during a rollover accident).
  
• Avoiding a federal investigation of rust problems in Tacoma pickups. This led to an internal buyback program.

In addition, the document says sudden acceleration was a key safety issue for several models, demonstrating that Toyota knew about the problem months before any recalls. The memo has caused a stir in Washington, where Toyota president Akio Toyoda will testify before Congress Feb. 24. The company was hit with two criminal subpoenas this month, one from a New York grand jury and one from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This news is extremely important to West Palm Beach defective product lawyers like us because it clearly shows that Toyota knew about the unintended acceleration problem months before it was disclosed to drivers of Toyota vehicles. In fact, other documents show that regulators knew about the problem as early as December of 2003. All businesses exist to make money, of course, but the content of Toyota’s presentation shows a corporate culture in which making money was considered more important than safety. If regulators, the media or attorneys can prove that the automaker intentionally didn’t act even after there was proof of a serious safety problem, Toyota will be in major legal trouble. In addition to regulatory and criminal action, it could face lawsuits from millions of Americans who bought Toyota vehicles believing they were safe and free of defects.

Continue reading "Newly Released Memo Shows Toyota Officials Bragged About Avoiding Safety Rules" »