Injuryboard Commentary - GM

Yaz / Yasmin / Ocella Side Effects: Thousands of Lawsuits Filed Across The Country

Brett Emison — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:18:56 GMT

There are reports of thousands of lawsuits across the country stemming from the serious and deadly side effects Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella.

In fact, there are so many lawsuits coming into New Jersey over Yaz and its sister contraceptive, Yasmin, that the New Jersey judiciary is considering forming a mass tort case against Bayer, located in Wayne, New Jersey.

Courthouse News Service reports that Bayer is facing more than 125 lawsuits over Yaz and up to six new cases a day are being filed around the country. Lawyers predict there could be 1,000 cases filed in the state.

The cases have been filed against Bayer, maker of Yaz and Yasmin, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, which makes the generic version, Ocella.

***

All three oral contraceptives are among the most widely used and involve a combination of ethinyl estradiol with drospirenone. It has been linked to health problems including strokes, heart attacks, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease, pulmonary embolisms and death.

Bayer says its studies, which it financed, find cardiovascular risks among women on the Bayer products were comparable to an older formula of birth control pills and that patient safety is its top priority.

Buy Bayer’s credibility was questioned when the company received an FDA letter that it had to retract misleading television commercials that the FDA said overstated the drug’s efficacy and promoted it to relieve premenstrual syndrome, for which it is not approved. Bayer says it spent $20 million on the retraction.

Then in August, the FDA said Bayer did not follow proper quality control procedures in its drug making plant.

***

Federal Yaz litigation has already been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in an MDL or multidistrict litigation in East St. Louis. Pennsylvania state court is consolidating the Yasmin and Yaz lawsuits in Philadelphia.

Our firm has teamed up with the very best trial lawyers in the country to litigate Yaz and Yasmin lawsuits in the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) pending in the Southern District of Illinois, near St. Louis.

In fact, one of our team, Mark Niemeyer of Onder Shelton O'Leary & Peterson, LLC, is one of only three in the country to be selected by the Court to act as co-lead counsel for these Yaz and Yasmin cases.

"My role in this MDL is simply a reflection of the commitment of all us . . . to the women or families of women who suffered grave heath consequences after taking Yaz or Yasmin and just how seriously we take all our cases," said Mr. Niemeyer.

What Is An MDL? How Does An MDL Effect My Case?

You can find out more about MDLs and how they work at this recent post.

An MDL is like a class action, but with important differences. Instead of only one "case" (like in a class action), each plaintiff in the MDL maintains his or her own claim. However, because of many areas of common interest, the thousands of cases are consolidated for much of the pre-trial work up. For example, all of the cases filed in federal courts across the country will be transferred and consolidated in front of a single trial judge. The trial judge will appoint certain attorneys to represent all of the plaintiffs for various issues during pre-trial work up, such as discovery (fact-finding), motions, and scientific testing.

Lead counsel for the MDL is appointed by the trial judge. This small group of attorneys (for the Yaz MDL, there are only three attorneys appointed as co-lead counsel) will manage all of the pre-trial work up of all cases (potentially thousands) within the MDL.

If you file your Yaz or Yasmin claim in federal court, the three co-lead counsels -- including Mark Niemeyer of our team of attorneys -- will manage the work up of your case until trial.

Who Are Members Of This Team Of Attorneys?

The Onder Law Firm, based in St. Louis, Missouri has a track record of success and results for their clients in pharmaceutical litigation, personal injury claims, class actions and multi-district litigation (MDLs). Other lawyers across the country seek the firm's experience and expertise on complex litigation in specialty areas like dangerous drug cases.

Langdon & Emison, with locations in Chicago, St. Louis and near Kansas City, is one the country's premier trial firms, successfully taking on the largest corporations in the country. Langdon & Emison fought General Motors to the United States Supreme Court. . . and won. Baker v. General Motors held that corporations could not buy the silence of their employees and is taught in law schools across the country. The lawyers at Langdon & Emison actually try cases and have built a reputation for getting results for their clients with total recoveries of more than half a billion dollars. You can learn more by visiting Langdon & Emison's safety blog or profile.

Standly Hamilton, based in Dallas, Texas, litigates cases involving important social issues, dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, catastrophic personal injury, and wrongful death.

How Do Yaz / Yasmin / Ocella Cause Such Serious Problems?

Popular birth control pills, Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella, have been linked to serious and potentially deadly side effects. This deadly side effects affect women of all ages, including teens and young women.

Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella have been linked to serious side effects, such as heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), gallbladder disease and sudden cardiac death.

Yaz and Yasmin contain the chemical, Drosperinone, which acts as a diuretic and causes fluid loss. This fluid loss decreases sodium in the blood and increases potassium. This imbalance causes irregular heartbeats and blood pooling, resulting in heart attacks, blood clots and stroke.

Learn More

You can learn more about the serious side effects of Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella and find out what to do if you or a loved one have suffered any of these dangerous side effects at this Yaz/Yasmin/Ocella informational and safety web site.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Fatal Motorcycle Accident In Conyers, Georgia

M. Brandon Smith — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:06:08 GMT

Last week on Tuesday, a tragic motorcycle and car accident occurred, leaving one driver dead. Stephen Andrew Wust, a 26 year old from Covington, Georgia was pronounced dead at the scene early Tuesday morning.

A 1999 Toyota Camry attempted to make a left turn off of Sigman Road as the driver was traveling north going onto Interstate 20. It was a little after 5 a.m. when Stephen Wust was traveling south at the same time the Camry was about to turn left.

When the Camry turned towards the on-ramp to the Interstate, it turned right in front of Wust, who was on his motorcycle. This caused Wust to lay the motorcycle down. He was thrown toward the entrance of the interstate as his motorcycle slid away. Wust was then tragically struck and run over by the driver of the Camry.

The driver of the Camry did not have any injuries as a result of this deadly accident but will likely face criminal charges as a result of this fatal motorcycle accident in he days ahead. The investigation into this tragic event continues and will be followed here.

Update:

In other news, the woman driver involved in last week’s traffic crash that killed a Covington motorcyclist was charged with homicide by vehicle by the Sheriff’s Office.

Judith C. Lorier, 66, of 2154 Rolling Acres Drive, was also charged with failure to yield right of way in making a left turn. She was booked into the Rockdale County Jail on Wednesday and released on $1,100 bond, according to RCSO spokeswoman Jodi Shupe.

Roadway safety is everyone's responsibility. Please be care and always look twice before making sudden turns or actions. The life you save could be your own.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by M. Brandon Smith

Auto and Vehicle Recall Update: New Recalls from NHTSA

Brett Emison — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:40:03 GMT

The Office of Defects Investigation recently sent notices of the following safety defect recalls:

Chrysler and Dodge Recall: 2009-10 Chrysler 300, Dodge Challenger and Dodge Charger recalled for a front wheel spindle nut defect. These vehicles may have been built without a front wheel spindle nut.

GM, Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn Recall: 2006-07 Chevy Cobalt, Pontiac G5 and Saturn Ion recalled for a fuel pump module defect. The plastic supply or return port on the modular reservoir assembly may crack. If either of these ports develops a crack, fuel will leak from the area. If the crack becomes large enough, fuel may be observed dripping onto the ground and vehicle performance may be affected.

Mazda Recall: 1995-97, 2001-03 Mazda B-series pickup trucks recalled because a speed control deactivation switch overheats. A component of the cruise control deactivation switch may deteriorate over time and develop a leak. This occurrence could cause the switch to overheat, smoke or burn which could result in an underhood fire.

If you own any of these vehicles, you should contact your dealer to schedule the required repair immediately.

Learn more about vehilce safet defects at our auto defect blog or by visiting our web site.

Learn more and become a fan of Langdon & Emison on Facebook.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Fayetteville, North Carolina Car Accident Leads to One Fatality and Serious Injuries

Rick Shapiro — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:59:27 GMT

A wrong way car accident in Fayetteville, North Carolina (NC) led to serious, potentially life threatening injuries and one tragic fatality, and this is a topic of various prior posts highlighting the dangers of wrong way drivers.

Robert Brigman was traveling north on Ramsey Street in Fayetteville, North Carolina (NC) when his car traveled over the center lane and hit a van head on. The van was driven by 72-year-old James Reeves. Reeves was airlifted to University of North Carolina Hospitals where he is being treated for serious injuries. Tragically, Robert Brigman died at the scene of the car accident. It does not appear that drugs or alcohol were a factor.

Head on collisions are often fatal. Statistics show that head on collisions account for 2% of all car accidents but make up 10% of all car accident fatalities. In a typical head on collision, neither driver has the time to brake. This means that the impact of the crash is doubled which results in serious injuries or even death.

James Reeves was likely hit without about a fraction of a second warning. While the final investigation has not been completed by North Carolina police investigators, the scope of Reeves’ injuries imply the accident was sudden. Reeves likely faces a lengthy hospital stay and significant recovery time due to his age and the nature of the car accident. Tragically, Reeves and his family may face a large hospital bill, missed work hours, and a difficult recovery period.

Under NC statutes, a driver that crosses the center line or a lane of travel, and enters the other driver's lane, is in violation of the law (unless some sudden emergency can be proven). A personal injury attorney can prove the liability of the at fault driver, and investigate all available sources of insurance recovery.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton is a law firm which focuses on injury and accident law. Our law firm has offices in Elizabeth City, North Carolina (NC) as well as Virginia Beach, Virginia (VA). Our attorneys have handled thousands of automobile negligence cases like these. We would be pleased to send you one of our FREE reports about car accident cases, including our special report on distracted driving or our Best Guide to Car Accident Injuries in North Carolina. Our lawyers hold licenses in NC, VA, SC, WV, KY and DC. We provide free initial confidential injury case consultations by phone, so call us toll free at 1-800-752-0042. Our injury attorneys also host an extensive injury law video library on Youtube . In addition, our lawyers proudly edit the Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard, as well as the Virginia Beach Injuryboard and Norfolk Injuryboard as a pro bono public information service.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Offer of Judment; "Put up or shut up"

Doug Landau — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:42:44 GMT

We often hear about lawyers who delay cases and trials. Are there any ways to bring an injury case to a fair conclusion more swiftly ? Yes, and one of the ways is called the "Offer of Judgement." An Offer of Judgment is a tool our law firm has used in civil litigation such as car crashes, dog attacks, motor vehicle accidents and defective product cases to encourage settlement. One party will make an offer to settle the case for a certain amount of money. If the offer is not accepted, and the party who declined to accept the offer does not receive a more favorable judgment at trial, that person must pay certain expenses incurred by the other party after making the offer. Such a rule is designed to offer defendants an incentive to make serious settlement offers and to encourage plaintiffs to take these offers seriously because of the risk of proceeding to trial and paying the defendant's post-offer costs if the plaintiff fails to obtain a result more favorable than the offer of judgment.

Currently, 42 states have an Offer of Judgment rule, with 30 of them based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. In New Jersey, Offers of Judgment are governed by Rule 4:58 of the New Jersey Court. Rule 4:58-2 provides that, “If the offer of a claimant is not accepted and the claimant obtains a money judgment, in an amount that is 120% of the offer or more, excluding allowable prejudgment interest and counsel fees, the claimant shall be allowed, in addition to costs of suit:

(1) all reasonable litigation expenses incurred following non-acceptance;

(2) prejudgment interest of eight percent on the amount of any money recovery from the date of the offer or the date of completion of discovery, whichever is later, but only to the extent that such prejudgment interest exceeds the interest prescribed by R. 4:42-11(b), which also shall be allowable; and

(3) a reasonable attorney's fee, which shall belong to the client, for such subsequent services as are compelled by the non-acceptance.”

An Offer of Judgment can only be used in cases where the award sought is exclusively monetary in nature. An Offer of Judgment can be a very good thing for disabled plaintiffs. For starters, it makes sure that defendants take any settlement offer that is made seriously by the injured victim's lawyer. Defendants do not want to pay even more costs and fees if they have already paid for an unsuccessful trial and defense counsel. In a truck crash, dog bite, defective product or dangerous premises case, early review of the provable losses can help counsel formulate a reasonable amount for an Offer of Judgment such that the insurance company and their lawyers are put in the tough position of potentially paying more money than their insured paid premiums for before the lawsuit !

Second, and even more important, it may be possible for a plaintiff to recover more than their policy limits from the insurance company. In Gonzales v. Safe and Sound Security Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the amount to be compared to the Offer of Judgment is the final jury award, and not the policy limit of the defendant. The Court stated, “The available monies under the insurance policy are not the measuring stick to determine whether plaintiff prevailed.” In other words, the court will not use your policy limit to determine whether you have received a money judgment that is 120% of your offer of judgment. Finally, an Offer of Judgment can save both the plaintiff and defendant time and money. By encouraging serious settlement offers, cases are more likely to settle.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Burned Alive: What You Need To Know About Fuel Fed Fire Defects

Brett Emison — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:42:24 GMT

According to the US Fire Administration, post-collision fires are the leading cause of vehicle-related deaths. These fires ignite for a variety of reasons including failure to incorporate anti-siphoning valves, failure to include fuel filler tube check valves, misrouting of fuel lines, failure to protect fuel lines, improper placement of the fuel tank inside the vehicle's crush zone and inadequate shielding of the fuel tank.

A person should not survive a crash only to be burned alive in a vehicle fire.

Auto industry insiders -- and even some consumers -- are familiar with tank location defects, such as the "side-saddle" fuel tank defect in which the fuel tanks were located in an unprotected area on the side of a pickup truck outside of the frame rails and "Pinto"-type defects where the fuel tank is located in an unprotected location between the rear axle and rear bumper. While these defects still exist, today the more common fuel system defects concern fuel siphoning (gas leakage after a fuel line has been cut or broken), failure to incorporate anti-leak check valves and fuel filler neck defects.

Manufacturers concede that a vehicle occupant should not survive a collision only to burn to death in a fire caused by a fuel leak. In other words, if the crash itself does not kill the occupant, neither should the fuel system.

General Motors (GM) engineers agreed and advised the company's management more than 35 years ago that fuel leaks should not occur in crashes that would otherwise be survivable. GM, as well as other manufacturers, failed to adopt this directive from their engineers and instead chose to comply only with the minimum standards imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301.

Around the same time, GM prepared a "value analysis" that examined the cost of fire-related fatalities to GM. The analysis, prepared by GM advance-design engineer Edward Ivey, has become known as the "Ivey Memo." Ivey concluded that GM could save $2.20 per new car if it could prevent fuel-fed fires in all crashes.

Langdon & Emison was able to have the Ivey Memo introduced as evidence for the first time in any case in Baker v. General Motors. GM tried keep Ronald Elwell, a GM engineer for more than 30 years, from testifying regarding the Ivey Memo value analysis. After fighting GM clear to the United States Supreme Court, a 9-0 decision confirmed that GM could not buy its engineer's silence. Elwell testified:

"Value analysis says all we have got is $2.20 to play with, if you will. We can either put that money in a fuel tank, put that money in a fuel pump, put that money in a fuel line, but in our opinion, in order to save these people from dying, we can only put $2.20 into the new cars."

The Ivey Memo told GM management that after only $2.20 per car, it became more profitable to let its customers die than to fix the problem. The Ivey Memo showed that GM put profits over safety and ignored the safety advice of its own engineers.

The Siphoning Defect

Siphoning is simply the flow of a liquid -- gasoline -- caused by pressure between the source of the liquid (the fuel tank) and a discharge point, such as a cut or break in a fuel line. Siphoning can result from either gravity or pressure in the fuel system. Once the siphoning has started, an ignition source as small as a spark will totally engulf the vehicle in flames.

An attorney investigating a siphoning case must determine the location of the break in the fuel line, the fluid level in the tank, and the orientation of the vehicle at the crash scene. If the break is lower than the fluid level in the tank, siphoning will occur because of gravity. If the break is above the fluid level, there must be adequate tank vapor pressure to force gasoline to siphon upward.

Siphoning cases are so successful for three primary reasons. First, the defect is easy for the jury to understand. While the scientific principles of siphoning may be somewhat technical, the concept is relatively simple. Most jurors will understand that gas will siphon from fuel tanks. Second, vehicle manufacturers have known how to repair the defect for many years. Finally, the cost of the safety device to prevent siphoning is minimal.

The automotive industry has known for many years that siphoning can contribute to post-collision fires. GM documents dating back to the early 1970s establish that the company knew about the danger and evaluated the cost of incorporating a shutoff valve inside the tank.

GM engineers discussed several "solutions" to prevent siphon ing after it was discovered that a car siphoned fuel from its tank in a 50-mph crash test into a pole. These included shutoff valves inside the tank; check valves at the tank; various shutoff connectors; and a vent hole in the fuel line at the tank.

Ford documents from the same period also discuss the hazard and various check or shutoff valves that would solve the problem.

If a vehicle caught fire, but the fuel tank was intact, a through investigation must be performed to determine if fuel could have siphoned from the gas tank. Siphoning is an all too common occurrence if no safety features are incorporated into the system.

The Filler Neck Defect

Since every vehicle must be fueled and refueled, every fuel system is designed with a significant hole -- the fuel filler pipe. Auto makers have known since the 1960s that check valves or other safety devices should be incorporated into the filler necks of fuel tanks to prevent the escape of gas during a collision. However, with only a few exceptions, automakers have failed to equip vehicles with these valves, and this defect has led to unnecessary injury and death in collisions.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB)—the predecessor to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—issued a report in 1967 concerning performance standards for fuel-tank protection. The agencies found that it was common for fuel to spill from the fuel-filler pipe in a rollover or other type of crash and concluded that check valves located in the pipe would eliminate spillage:

Information received from accident data reports indicate[s] that the rollover type of accident accounts for the highest incidence of fatal burn injuries. In a rollover accident, fuel is often spilled from a virtually intact system. Separation of the filler pipe from the body shell or from the tank opens a large exit for the fuel. Also, the vent pipe of the tank can spill during and following an overturning accident."

Check valves located at the filler-pipe and vent-pipe openings of a fuel tank would eliminate spillage during rollover or upset. These check valves might be gravity operated, spring loaded, or operated by vacuum from the engine.

In 1970, General Motors identified the solution to the problem in a memorandum that discussed a proposed modification to FMVSS 301, the fuel-system-integrity standard:

"The rollover problem is two-fold. [N]ot only must the system not leak as designed, but it must survive severe front and rear impacts. Due to the usual poor repeatability of crash tests, it may be necessary to put emergency no-flow devices in each line emerging from the tank."

The concept of a check valve for the fuel-filler pipe is nearly as old as automobiles themselves. Patents dating back to the 1930s refer to these devices. The early patents discuss "flapper valves," which were originally designed to prevent intentional siphoning of gas from the tank. These valves were later designed to stop the flow of gasoline out of the fuel tank in a collision.

An attorney handling a vehicle-fire case should investigate whether a fuel spill from the filler neck led to the blaze. If so, an inexpensive, simple, and well-known safety device could have prevented the car's occupants from suffering injury or death from the fire.

Vehicle fires remain a significant auto safety problem. While fuel-tank-location cases might continue to be common, attorneys should always consider whether the case involves a siphoning defect or a defect associated with the filler neck of the fuel tank.

Langdon & Emison is one of the leading automotive product liability law firms in the country. We have fought nearly every major auto manufacturer on behalf of our clients and have reputation of success in the courtroom and results for our clients.

Langdon & Emison has offices in Chicago, St. Louis and near Kansas City. We try cases across the country and represent seriously injured persons and the families of those killed by defective products or the negligence of others. Our practice areas include automotive products liability, general products liability, trucking accidents, railroad crossing accidents, mass tort claims, dangerous drugs and commercial litigation.

Become a fan of Langdon & Emison on Facebook.

Connect with Brett Emison on LinkedIn.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Lawsuit Over Hazing Death

Greg Jones — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:55:43 GMT

This week the family of a Utah State University student filed a lawsuit alleging USU officials tolerated "a culture of drug and alcohol abuse" at a fraternity house where their son, a teenage freshman pledge, died of alcohol poisoning after an alleged hazing last fall. According to the suit, the Sigma Nu fraternity chapter had a long documented history of misconduct, including an alcohol-related suicide by hanging, underage drinking, arson, thefts, vandalism, false fire alarms and assaults. The suit not only accuses the Sigma Nu chapter of straying from its chartering principles, but argues that University has a legal obligation to bring student organizations into line.

It is sad that in this day and age, parents have to worry about potential injuries from illegal hazing even after many successful lawsuits from injury and death. The USU case shows that not only the indiviuals casing the harm but othe organizations such as the college, the local fraternity chapter as well as its national parent fraternity may be sued for alleged injuries. In the above case, the national fraternity has already reached an out of court settlement with the family.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Jones

Hawaii Consumer Alert: GM and Isuzu Truck Recall Raises Concerns Because Bailout Eliminates Product Liability Claims For Injury or death

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:41:04 GMT

In a report in U.S. News & World Report a pickup truck recall is initiated by automakers.

A brake light defect in General Motors trucks could lead to an an accident. GM is recalling about 185,000 small Chevrolet, GM and Isuzu pickup trucks to correct the defect.

Affected vehicles include the 2004-2009 Chevrolet Colorado, the 2004-2009 GMC Canyon, the 2006 Isuzu I-280, the 2006 Isuzu I-350, the 2007-2008 Isuzu I-290 and the 2007-2008 Isuzu I-370.

GM filed a defect notice with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):

"Some of these vehicles have a brake lamp switch that may not work as designed due to contamination in the switch. This could cause the simultaneous loss of all brake lamps, or cause all of the brake lamps to stay on continuously. Both of these conditions could fail to warn others of the driver's intentions and could lead to a vehicle crash."

Hawaii is on the list of sates affected by the recall: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Utah.

If you own such a vehicle the dealer will replace the brake lamp switch free of charge. The automaker is designing a better part to fix the problem and predicts having it available early next year. So for now the defective switch will be replaced and then in February 2010 Dealers will contact owners for replacing that switch with the new improved switch. According to a GM spokesman

"A special coverage for vehicles registered in all other states will be implemented in the same time frame. In the interim, owners who experience the failure can obtain a free repair, however they will be required to return with the new design part becomes available."

To get more information contact Chevrolet at (800) 630-2438 , GMC at (866) 996-9463 , and Isuzu at (800) 255-6727.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Hazing Should Have Real Consequences

Bret Hanna — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Last November, Michael Starks, an 18-year-old freshman at Utah State University and Sigma Nu pledge, died of alcohol poisoning after a hazing event. On the night of his death, Starks' future brothers voted to have him "captured" by the sisters of Chi Omega at the house next door. As part of this hazing event, eight of those sisters took Starks to an office campus house where he consumed a lethal dose of vodka in their presence. He later died in his sleep at the Sigma Nu house.

But according to an article yesterday in the Salt Lake Tribune, there are no hazing convictions six months after charges were filed by Cache County against twelve people involved in the incident. Four of the twelve have been sentenced to jail and other punishments have been doled out, but none of them were for violations of Utah's hazing statute. Four remaining defendants have filed motions with Judge Thomas Willmore to have the charges against them dismissed and if that happens, it does not appear that there will be any hazing convictions resulting from this tragedy. The status of those charged is as follows:

Cody Littlewood, 20, Sigma Nu president, charged with hazing. Motion to dismiss pending.

McKell Miner, 19, Chi Omega member, charged with hazing. Motion to dismiss to be argued Oct. 1.

Alexandra White, 20, Chi Omega member, charged with hazing. Motion to dismiss to be argued Oct. 1.

Mallory Mitchell, 20, Chi Omega member, charged with hazing. Motion to dismiss to be argued Oct 1.

Whitney Miller, 20, Chi Omega member, pleaded guilty to furnishing alcohol, hazing dismissed. Had multiple prior alcohol violations. Sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Brittany Packham, 20, Chi Omega member, pleaded guilty to furnishing alcohol to a minor, hazing dismissed. Sentencing set for July 20.

Erin Anthony, 22, USU student, charged with furnishing alcohol to a minor. Pleaded guilty and will be sentenced Monday.

Christopher Ammon, 20, Sigma Nu officer, pleaded guilty to furnishing alcohol, hazing dismissed. Fourteen days in jail.

Grant Barney, 23, Sigma Nu member, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice charge, hazing count dismissed. Eight days in jail.

Sadie Green, 19, entered a plea in abeyance to hazing. No jail.

Timothy Weber, 25, Sigma Nu's vice president, charges dismissed

Brittany Bell, 21, Chi Omega member, charges dismissed

Cecily Kiss, 19, Chi Omega member, charges dismissed

Utah is one of 44 states that has enacted a hazing statute. The Utah statute is in the Utah Code at section 76-5-107.5:

76-5-107.5. Prohibition of "hazing" -- Definitions -- Penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of hazing if that person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly commits an act or causes another to commit an act that:
(a) (i) endangers the mental or physical health or safety of another;
(ii) involves any brutality of a physical nature such as whipping, beating, branding, calisthenics, bruising, electric shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, or exposure to the elements;
(iii) involves consumption of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance or any other physical activity that endangers the mental or physical health and safety of an individual; or
(iv) involves any activity that would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation, extended isolation from social contact, or conduct that subjects another to extreme embarrassment, shame, or humiliation; and
(b) (i) is for the purpose of initiation, admission into, affiliation with, holding office in, or as a condition for continued membership in any organization; or
(ii) if the actor knew that the victim is a member of or candidate for membership with a school team or school organization to which the actor belongs or did belong within the preceding two years.
(2) It is not a defense to prosecution of hazing that a person under 21, against whom the hazing was directed, consented to or acquiesced in the hazing activity.
(3) An actor who hazes another is guilty of a:
(a) class B misdemeanor if there are no aggravating circumstances;
(b) class A misdemeanor if the act involves the operation or other use of a motor vehicle;
(c) third degree felony if the act involves the use of a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601;
(d) third degree felony if the hazing results in serious bodily injury to a person; or
(e) second degree felony if hazing under Subsection (3)(d) involves the use of a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601.
(4) A person who in good faith reports or participates in reporting of an alleged hazing is not subject to any civil or criminal liability regarding the reporting.
(5) (a) This section does not apply to military training or other official military activities.
(b) Military conduct is governed by Title 39, Chapter 6, Utah Code of Military Justice.
(6) (a) A prosecution under this section does not bar a prosecution of the actor for:
(i) any other offense for which the actor may be liable as a party for conduct committed by the person hazed; or
(ii) any offense, caused in the course of the hazing, that the actor commits against the person who is hazed.
(b) Under Subsection (6)(a)(i) a person may be separately punished, both for the hazing offense and the conduct committed by the person hazed.
(c) Under Subsection (6)(a)(ii) a person may not be punished both for hazing and for the other offense, but shall be punished for the offense carrying the greater maximum penalty.

The criticism of the statute is that it is too broad and is unconstitutionally vague because it may go so far as to criminalize constitutionally protected activities. If that is the case, the statute should be reviewed immediately and revised to address the constitutional concerns so that in the future when hazing incidences result in injury or death, there are serious consequences for those involved. And for more information on hazing and how to stop it, go to resources like StopHazing.org.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

New GM Accepts New Product Liability Claims

Greg Webb — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:00:00 GMT

In a bid to win court approval for a quick sale from bankruptcy, General Motors Corp. (GM) has agreed to accept liability for future product defects. Additionally, GM stated that it would change the terms of its proposed asset sale to address the objections raised by twenty suppliers and was working to create a “consensual” agreement regarding the future of a joint-venture plant with Toyota. These statements by GM demonstrate how the auto manufacturer and Obama administration officials have worked to counter some of the more controversial issues raised by the company’s bankruptcy filing. A group of nine state attorney generals, for example, voiced opposition to GM’s reorganization because it would have robbed consumers of protection against product defects under state legislation.

By August, under the GM reorganization plan, a new company would be created to buy the company’s best assets out of bankruptcy. This new company would be 60 percent owned by the federal government, 17.5 percent by the United Auto Workers union and 11.7 percent by the Canadian government and the province of Ontario. The consumers who have lawsuits pending against GM have objected to the reorganization plan since those injury and wrongful-death claims would have to be paid from the sale of GM’s most worthless assets. They further claim the automaker’s insurance would only cover product liability claims of up to $35 million per claim. This amount would not cover the claims of almost any of the lawsuits since many of the cases involved “devastating injuries” from alleged automobile defects.

GM has agreed, however, to continue paying “lemon law” claims so consumers would be entitled to a refund or replacement for defective vehicles. GM has also stated that the reorganized company, which will be nationalized with a $50 billion investment from the United States Treasury, will assume liability for future product defect claims as well.

While it is a good thing that GM will be back in business as (the New GM), it is a tragedy that there are thousands of product liability claims, including those for asbestos-related illnesses, that will effectively be kicked to the curb. All claims that existed before the "reorganization" are likely never going to be paid anything close to acual value. All of those that fall into this latter group probably feel as if the justice system has failed them. I am not sure how I could argue differently at the present time.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb