Defective Products Archive

Reader Takes Chrysler Town & Country to Task on Video

January 13th, 2011. By AbiK

This just in from a reader re: Chrysler Town and Country:

Please help me….I’ve hit a brick wall with all my inquiries and this is a HUGE issue.
Please go to youtube and type in silverlake003 and the video list will show up.
It’s about the third one down with the back bumper of a Chrysler Town and Country, sort of a wine color.
This quick video will explain it.
We were rear-ended just before Christmas.
The seatbelts did not lock and my daughter who was in a booster was flipped outside down and pinned between her seat and the passenger seat.
The seatbelts lock if you slam on the breaks but not if you are sitting still.
I filed a report with the NHTSA but was simply sent an email that said CASE CLOSED.
Please help me ensure that no other child has this happen to them.

Now, I don’t know what year model she’s referring to, but her video and comment is of interest as we all expect a seatbelt to work when we slam on the brakes. But what happens upon rear impact?

I know from personal experience—will never forget it as it was the night that news about Sam Kinison’s death was all over the radio—when a car rear-ended me at a red light. I began to jerk forward for sure—but my seatbelt restrained me from having my steering wheel imprint a nice doughnut “O” on my chest. It was a hit and run, so the idiot who did it was never caught, or apprehended.

Be that as it may, I expected my seatbelt to work. And it did.

Chrysler did have a Town and Country recall a number of years ago—in 2005—NHTSA Campaign ID#04V047000—for defective seatbelts. The issue at the time was “After performing the NCAP test, it was discovered that on certain minivans equipped without the available “Stow N Go” seating option, the right front seat belt retractor assembly may have been improperly assembled….As a result the seat belt may not properly restrain the occupant during certain crash conditions, which can increase the risk of injury.”

But no seatbelt recalls since. And a quick check on Town and Country models from the years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 results in only a few reported seat belt complaints with the NHTSA.

Still, a picture (or video) can be worth a thousand words. No, a layperson’s video is not the same as some closed circuit test drive over at Consumer Reports—but by the same token, it does raise an eyebrow.

Thanks, Sarah, for sharing your story.

Tags: Chrysler, defective auto, Defective Seatbelts, NHTSA, Town & Country, Town and Country
Posted in Automotive, Defective Products | No Comments »

BPA on Cash: Reason to Give Your Daughter The Credit Card

December 21st, 2010. By Hunter West

It’s enough to make you want to give your daughter the credit card.

“Here…please…TAKE it…don’t spend your cash.”

That’s because a recent study has found that Bisphenol A (BPA) can now be found on paper money.

Not that your dollar bills are manufactured with BPA. But researchers are suggesting that the BPA found on some cash register receipts is rubbing off onto paper money.

There is some debate as to whether, or not this is really harmful, however…

For example, Kathryn St. John, a BPA specialist with the American Chemistry Council noted in comments to CNN earlier this month that BPA levels in some thermal papers are low, and research shows that it’s safe.

“To the limited extent BPA is absorbed through the skin, it is converted to a biologically inactive metabolite that is rapidly eliminated from the body,” St. John said.

“Biomonitoring data from the US Centers for Disease Control shows that consumer exposure to BPA, which would include any exposure from receipts, is extremely low. Typical exposure from all sources is about 1,000 times below safe intake levels set by government bodies in Europe and the US In comparison, the trace levels of BPA claimed to be present in dollar bills are insignificant.”

But critics aren’t so sure—and lately they’ve been getting some vindication from the likes of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which issued a statement earlier this year admitting that recent studies “provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.”

Ericka Schreder, a staff Scientist with the Washington Toxics Coalition (WTC) and author of the report “On The Money: BPA on Dollar Bills and Receipts” that was also published by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, noted that it only takes ten seconds for BPA to transfer to skin from a cash receipt.

In other words, the time it takes for you to accept the receipt and either jam it in your pocket or, like most people, fold it up and stuff it into your wallet or purse. You now have BPA on your hands.

What’s more, if that receipt is stuffed in along with your paper money, you now have BPA on your money, too.

“Levels on dollar bills were lower than on receipts, but the fact that our currency is contaminated with a hormone-disrupting chemical illustrates how our current chemical law is failing us,” Schreder says. “Even the most careful consumer can’t avoid BPA when it’s so pervasive that it even contaminates money.”

BPA has been linked to everything from cancer, to early puberty. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at the National Institutes of Health previously noted that 93 percent of urine samples from individuals over the age of six years exhibit detectable levels of BPA.

While research linking BPA to specific health problems remains inconclusive, most agree that an update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is long overdue.

Schreder says the Act needs to be replaced with a new chemical law requiring companies to “provide health information on chemicals they produce and ensure chemicals that can cause cancer, infertility, and other health problems can’t be used in everyday products.”

Bottom line? There is BPA on a lot of cash receipts. Now there is BPA on cash. While the jury is still out on just how harmful BPA is (if it is at all), a precaution might be to park the cash and use the plastic more.

That includes your teenage daughter. Let’s just hope you can afford it…

Tags: Bisphenol, BPA, bpa-breast-cancer, Receipts
Posted in Defective Products, Emerging Issues | No Comments »

Rash of Recalls & Investigations from NHTSA – Is Your Vehicle Affected?

November 30th, 2010. By LucyC

It seems the FDA is not the only government agency awash in investigations of possible defective products.

Several investigations are under way by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), among them an investigation into a possible fire hazard of Honda CR-Vs model-year 2006. Some 150,000 vehicles could be affected.

The problem? Three owners have complained of fires involving the master power switch in the driver’s door. Sound familiar?—it is. In January Honda recalled almost 141,000 Fits model-years 2007-2008 for the same problem. 

The Honda Fit recall was prompted because of a defective window switching mechanism. According to a statement from Honda UK released to the media, “Under some severe operating conditions, water, rain, or other liquid may enter the driver’s window and reach the master power window switch resulting in impaired function of the switch. If the master power window switch is damaged as a result of the liquid intrusion, it may result in failure of the switch and overheating. An overheating switch may cause smoke, melting or, potentially, fire,” the statement read.

It remains to be seen if Honda’s CR-V will be recalled—depends on what the NHTSA digs up, so stay tuned. 

But the agency is also notifying people of  reported problems with Volvo—which has recalled about 6,000 vehicles this week—specifically its S80, S60, XC70 and XC60 models—because they may stall. According to Volvo, “The engine and transmission software calibration is too sensitive. When the driver is braking during city driving, and/or releases the accelerator pedal, the engine idle speed may drop, resulting in a sudden engine stall without any prior warning.” Definitely not a good thing to have happen.

And brace yourself—Jaguar is recalling almost 6,500 of its 2010 and 2011 XJ sedans because the windshield wipers could, fight each other to their mutual demise—and the owner’s presumably. Wouldn’t that be entertaining on a dark and stormy night. Some problem with the securing nuts failing, which in turn could prompt a lack of wiper arm synchronization—leading to a ‘clash of the wiper arms.’ And it’s all downhill from there basically—the wipers could come off and reduce the driver’s visibility, which in turn could result in a crash.

And then there’s General Motors. The Detroit automaker is recalling nearly 193,000 pickups because the top tether needed to anchor a child restraint in the front center seat position is not accessible, according to the Agency.

The vehicles affected are the 2004–11 Chevrolet Colorado, the GMC Canyon, the 2006 Isuzu I-280 and I-350, the 2007–8 Isuzu I-290 and I-370. The models are regular cabs or extended cabs that lack rear seats.

And, not to be left out, Kia Motors’ Optima is under investigation by the agency—about 41,000 vehicles may be affected by a transmission problem. The NHTSA has reportedly received  complaints of the automatic transmission cable coming loose. It was prompted by three reports of the transmission not shifting, including one that said the vehicle rolled away. Apparently, Kia had warned dealers of such a problem in 2007. So that makes it alright to sell them?

There is also a raft of recreational vehicles, such as the Monaco, the Holiday Rambler, Winnebago, and the Safari Coach with various problems involving refrigerators and ovens. If you want to find out more, visit the NHTSA website, safercar.gov.

In the meantime, we’ll post defective automobile recalls as we get updates.

Safe driving!

Tags: Chevy Colorado, General Motors, GMC Canyon, Honda CR-X, Isuzu I-280, Isuzu I-350, Jaguar XJ, Kia, Monaco, Volvo S60, Volvo S80, Volvo XC60, Volvo XC70, Winnebago
Posted in Automotive, Defective Products | No Comments »

Chinese Drywall: Now Finger’s Pointing at Banks

November 10th, 2010. By LucyC

Well, it seems like the perfect storm has arrived on the doorsteps of American banks. For quite some time the pressure has been building around banking practices, specifically due diligence on foreclosures, which has recently resulted in a rash of class action lawsuits in various states across the country (see above chart for the breakdown of Chinese drywall reported incidents by state), as well as investigations by Attorneys General in several states. And there will likely be more to come. Now, in a bizarre twist of fate, it seems the Chinese drywall debacle has been added to the foreclosure mess. And what a witches brew it is. 

This week, the Chinese Drywall Complaint Center (CDCC)—a national watchdog group—has issued a press release stating that “we are now targeting greedy US banks, for reselling toxic Chinese drywall foreclosures in Florida, and other US States, without an oh by the way—anytime after February of 2009.” They go on to state that “by March of 2009 we do not think there was a single US bank, or loan servicer that was unaware of the toxic Chinese drywall disaster—yet they continued to sell their poisonous foreclosures AS IS—no disclosure of this toxic Chinese drywall product to unsuspecting US consumers?” And, “For clarification purposes the Chinese Drywall Complaint Center is saying, “contrary to homebuilder claims about only using toxic Chinese drywall after Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005—toxic Chinese drywall has been used in Florida since as early as 2001.” 

According to the CDCC website, the organization has “now determined with 100% certainty, that imported toxic Chinese drywall has been installed all over the US Southeast including the states of Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Southeast Texas, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina. Tragically, we believe toxic Chinese drywall has also been installed in all other regions of the United States. However, without high thresholds of heat & humidity, it becomes much more difficult to see the worst effects of toxic Chinese drywall.” 

And, they also state that “many homes in the US Southeast have toxic Chinese drywall intermixed with US made drywall. If these homes were built or remodeled after 2001, we believe a small amount of imported Chinese drywall is enough to make an entire house toxic. The net result is [that] instead of ending up with tens of thousands of now toxic US Southeast homes, we are convinced we have 100,000’s of toxic US Southeast homes.” 

It’s highly likely that people have purchased foreclosures that contain Chinese drywall. Thinking about who might be liable, though, actually makes my head spin: purchasers need due diligence such as home inspections; and lenders like to make sure the property is in good nick before they finance the mortgage; but then if it’s a foreclosure, wouldn’t the bank selling the house have to disclose that it was contaminated with Chinese drywall—provided they knew? And for that matter, does anyone have to disclose that a house is contaminated with Chinese drywall? These and many more questions come to mind. For my money, finding the answers would definitely be best left to lawyers. 

But—deep in the midst of the Chinese Drywall hurricane there is some good news. Recently, Chinese drywall manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Company agreed to pay to repair 300 homes in Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi in a pilot remediation program. Reportedly, a Louisiana-based supplier and several home builders and insurers are contributing to the cost of the repairs. More than 3,000 claims are supposedly pending against Knauf. Let’s hope it goes well, because if it does the program might provide a framework for a larger settlement, which no doubt would be welcome.

Tags: Banks, chinese drywall, Foreclosures
Posted in Defective Products, Financial | No Comments »

The Mass Tort Muser Ponders Yaz Lawsuits

October 26th, 2010. By Mass Tort Muser

Yaz (and its sib, Yasmin) has been under fire over the past couple of years. Hell hath no fury, right? And there are definitely some women out there feeling a bit scorned by big pharma on this one…

But talk about the pendulum swinging back in the opposite direction. It wasn’t all that long ago that we (women, that is) were ecstatic that finally, yes finally, there was a mere pill—such a teeny tiny helper!—that could save us from unwanted pregnancy and that God-forsaken monthly interruption—cramps and all. (Insert a “Right-on!” shout-out to Ms. Steinem, women’s lib and a few burnt bras…).

Fast-forward almost forty years…and the pill delivers zit relief, too—our cup runneth over! Breakout banisher is basically how Yaz positioned itself on center stage of the contraception market—and how it netted not only a whole new generation of pretty young things as groupies but also a wrist-slap from the FDA. Seems telling women about how clear their skin would be without telling them about potential little side effects like deep vein thrombosis or perhaps the need for gallbladder surgery wasn’t such a slick marketing move. At least they didn’t try to get shelf space next to Clearasil.

But you know all that. And here’s where the musing and pondering kick in…

Given what’s been going on with Yaz, you may be wondering why on earth there isn’t some big brouhaha going on—you know, one of those class actions. It seems whenever there’s a product—be it a lawnmower, Expedia.com’s hotel reservations, or Similac baby formula—that doesn’t do what it says it will do or causes undo harm, there’s a class action. So, what’s up with Yaz? Where the heck is my “opt in” claim form? Was I not invited?!?

Let’s look at how some of the details rack up: indeed, lots of women allege to have been harmed by Yaz—enough perhaps to even be considered a “class” or at least a sizeable cocktail party. And possible Yaz side effects are numerous—and not just your run of the mill “honey I’ve got a headache gonna lie down” type. No, these are biggies: gallbladder problems, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, heart attack, stroke… Keep in mind, too, the women getting Yaz prescriptions filled are, obviously, within child-bearing age, so they’re younger—not the typical age-range for heart attack or stroke, for example.

So why not a Yaz class action? Why not a little “you may be part of a Yaz lawsuit” postcard in the mailbox or a full-page ad of legalese in People magazine? The answer is because Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Mass Tort, Ocella, Yasmin, Yaz, Yaz lawsuit
Posted in Defective Products, Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues, Personal Injury | No Comments »