They put profit over people and now, after some 3.8 to 4 million vehicles sold, Toyota is now in the middle of the 6th most massive recall in the United States for its defective floor mats and gas pedals.
The nationwide recall of Camry, Avalon, Prius, Tundra, Tacoma and Lexus’ later models came on the wake of a tragic car accident caused by unintended acceleration which took the life of a veteran California Highyway Patrol officer and his entire family.
Owners of affected Toyota models have been advised to take out the driver-side floor mat and to wait for Toyota’s direct notification of the recall by the end of the year.
Reports and the investigations following the CHP officer’s death revealed that rubber all-weather floor mat found in the wreckage could have snared or covered the gas pedal. Likewise, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that there is an "underlying defect" involving the design of the accelerator pedal and the driver's foot-well.
The recall is a massive blow to Toyota’s outstanding reputation for quality. The Japanese car manufacturer is also the world’s biggest automaker. Its president, Akio Toyoda has expressed remorse for the death of the CHP officer and his family.
According to the NHTSA, there have been 14 fatalities and eight injuries caused by sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles since 2002. There is also a safety consultant in Massachusetts who has found that there are more than 2,000 incidents with 16 deaths and 243 injuries because of Toyota’s gas pedals.
Buying a car is a very important investment and consumers always put their faith and money in the automakers’ claims of quality cars. But the truth is, while car makers have a reputation to uphold, their desire to make a profit is still their priority.
Toyota is now in hot water for failing to address its consumer’s issues and complaints about the sudden acceleration of its trucks and cars as early as 2002. If they only acted sooner, the recall wouldn’t have been as massive as it is today and perhaps the Saylor family’s lives and many other victims would have been spared.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada issued the voluntary product recall of about 2 million drop-side cribs manufactured by Stork Craft.
The product recall covers about 1.2 million cribs in the US and about 968,000 cribs in Canada.
At least 147,000 of the cribs carried the brand Fisher-Price logo.
The product recall was prompted by reports of incidents where the drop-sides got detached.
All in all, there were 110 reported incidents received by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, health Canada and Stork Craft.
Of those 110, 15 children were trapped and four of them suffocated. Another 20 children fell from cribs that resulted in bumps, bruises and concussions.
The parents of the children who got injured and most especially those, whose children died, should consult a lawyer about filing a personal injury or a wrongful death lawsuit against the manufacturer.
Under the product liability lawsuit, all they have to prove to win is that the crib actually has a safety defect that could cause the injury or death of their child.
For the parents who lost their children, winning the lawsuit will not bring their sons or daughters back but it will be a way to hold the manufacturer accountable for their deaths.
For consumers who have questions about the product recall and the supposed safety defect, you can call Stork Craft at (877) 274-0277.
Police are yet to apprehend the driver in the fatal Prunedale hit-and-run accident which took the life of a 41-year-old man who was trying to cross the street.
Authorities speculate that the vehicle, which was either a red truck or an SUV, has damages on its front bumper after hitting Prunedale pedestrian Gregory Pryer.
Pedestrians should always be cautious when crossing the street and always use marked ways so that they can be seen by oncoming motorists.
Likewise, motorists should be cautious of crossing pedestrians and make it a point to stop and assist the victim if he ever gets into an accident. By this, they can subtly settle their dispute without having to go through personal injury litigation which will involve a lot of time and expenses on both ends.
The Google keyword war was taken to a whole new level when a Wisconsin law firm paid for the name of their competitor as their own keyword.
Now Canon & Dunphy law firm received a civil lawsuit from the owner of the name, the Habush Habush & Rottier Law Office.
What happened was that once you Google “Habush” or “Rottier”, a sponsored link of Canon would appear above the other results.
According to Habush, Canon and Dunphy has violated privacy laws by using the name of their competitor.
Habush claims that under Wisconsin right-to-privacy statute, a name of any living person cannot be used in advertising campaigns without consent.
Cannon acknowledged that they did pay for the keyword but claimed that it was a legal business strategy.
Most would disagree with Cannon though.
A lot of people would side with Habush that the move was very deceptive and misleading.
Besides, that is why businesses register their names to the Secretary of State, so that it will not be used by other entities, especially by competitors.
A business name is also their trademark and is protected by Intellectual property rights law.
The move undermines existing laws that protect the credibility built by the companies for themselves.
And even if it is legal, sometimes there are just lines that you do not cross.
The move was very underhanded and quite frankly, dishonest.
Is that really the image they want to give people? A law firm that is willing to mislead customers to get ahead of the pack.
Drunk driving is considered a serious offense because doing this act momentarily impairs drivers from driving responsibly. However, many drivers do not realize its effects until an accident happens.
A man was recently placed under custody on the suspicion of DUI in connection with a single-vehicle accident in Montebello that left three people injured.
According to authorities, one passenger sustained critical injuries while a second passenger and the driver sustained minor injuries after they were all ejected from the vehicle.
The driver who was identified as Lester Enrique Chupina, 33, from Whittier, was booked on the suspicion of drunk driving in relation with the crash that happened at the intersection of Garfield and Whittier.
Preliminary investigation revealed that the car was moving at an excessive speed when the driver crashed after losing control of the vehicle, police said.
Reports also stated that the car smashed into buildings and took out numerous palm trees.
The sheriff’s department said Chupina is being held on a $100,000 bail and may be arraigned in East Los Angeles.
The state should implement graver punishments to anyone who is found guilty of DUI so that the number of accidents caused by it will be lessened. In addition, the selling of alcohol should be closely monitored to prevent people from drinking too much before operating a vehicle.
Toys are favorite gifts for children especially this holiday season. Among the more favorite toys are Barbie dolls and Disney toys.
However, the findings of the Center for Environmental Health revealed that out of 250 toys tested, seven were found to have lead levels exceeding federal limits. Among these are the Barbie Bike Flair Accessory Kit, a Disney Tinkerbell Water Lily necklace, Dora the Explorer Activity Tote, two pairs of children's shoes, a boys’ belt and a kids' poncho.
Matell argued that it licensed the Barbie name to Bell Sports in its bike accessory but did not make or sell it. Bell, on the other hand, contended that the kit passed safety tests in 2007.
Disney, on its part, said that its Tinkerbell necklace was tested by its licensee Playmates toys complying with all federal and state consumer safety regulations.
Due to the findings, the Consumer Product Safety Commission which regulates toys and thousands of other products was digging into the matter.
If a child has been injured or endangered by these toys, a product liability case may be filed against these toy manufacturers. A personal injury case may be filed against them to claim compensation.
That is the problem when an agreement does not work as the parties had hoped; it can turn to a bitter dispute and an expensive lawsuit.
The City of San Diego is now being sued by Axon Data Solutions Inc for alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement.
The IT Company is now asking $5.59 million from the city.
According to San Diego Processing Corp, a city owned agency, they have terminated the contract with Axon because the contractor failed to meet deadlines numerous times.
Axon did not contest the right of the city to terminate the contract but claimed that it is subject to payment of all Axon outstanding invoices for work completed, payment for any work in progress but not yet completed, and also Axon's wind-down costs.
They claimed that the city has not paid outstanding invoices but has begun using the codes processes they designed.
These actions, they claim, are unauthorized use of Axon's trade secrets and copyright protected materials.
Who is right?
Well that depends on the terms of the independent contractor agreement that they agreed upon.
Intellectual property right laws about copyright and trade secrets can be complicated.
Aside from the payment for the completed work of Axiom, the important question is who owns the completed codes and processes that are already being used.
Is it Axon, who actually developed the said codes or the city who commissioned the contractor to develop it?
All of those will depend upon the actual details of their agreement.
Petsmart is expanding their product recall to include a dozen more dog treats made by Pet Carousel of Sanger.
It all started last week when Petsmart recalled its Dentley’s brand of Bulk Cattle Hooves and Choobles 10-Pack Beef Hooves after Pet Carousel informed them that the products may have been contaminated with salmonella.
The FDA then warned the public against using beef hoofs and pig ears made by Pet Carousel.
The affected products were marketed under the names:
• Doggie Delight
• Choo Hooves
• Dentley’s
• Pet Carousel
The FDA reportedly found Salmonella to be present in the pig ears, beef hooves and manufacturing environment.
Petsmart took the best move they can make and announced a voluntary product recall of the said products.
It should save the company from further embarrassment because of their swift action on the matter.
The product recall, though costs a lot of dollars, should save a lot of money for the company in the long run because it prevented possible product liability lawsuits from angry consumers.
Salmonella infections can make our beloved pets suffer severe symptoms like fever, abdominal pains, diarrhea, bloody diarrhea and vomiting.
And aside from making the pets sick, it can also affect humans.
Salmonella can be transmitted by contact so all consumers are advised to wash their hands after handling the products.
To help you identify if the dog treat your using is affected, here is a complete list of the products included in the product recall including their description, SKU, and UPC.
• Dentley’s Bulk Cattle Hoof: 1611247, 73725703323
• Dentley’s Choobles 10-Pack Beef Hooves: 5019015, 73725736055
• Choo-Hooves Stuffed with Cheese-Bacon: 1611993, 3465190058
• Choo-Hooves Stuffed with Peanut Butter: 611994, 3465190056
• Flossy Chews Choo-Hoove Roper Two-Hooves: 1813131, 3465117005
• Flossy Chews Roper Bone Buddy: 1815505, 3465190002
• Flossy Chews Beef Bones with Rope Toy: 5080721, 3465117055
• Flossy Chews White Bone Rope: 5147942, 3465117065
• Knucle Steaks 2-Pack: 5084141, 3465190046
• Choo-Hooves Dog Chews 3-Pack: 1611410, 3465184103
• 3-Pack Smoked Hooves: 5042279; 3465114003, 4651140037
• 5-lb. Cow Hooves: 5042275; 34651150609, 3465115060
• 5-lb. Smokies-Hooves: 5042277; 34651140556, 3465114055
• 60-Piece Smoked Hooves: 5042278, 3465112122
For additional information about the product recall you can visit www.petsmartfact.com, www.petsmart.com, or www.fda.gov
You can also contact Petsmart at 888-839-9638.
The 17-year-old Torrey Pines High School student has admitted his guilt and liability in the gross vehicular manslaughter charge filed against him in connection with a DUI accident in October that killed his friend and seriously injured another.
Immediately after the accident, the teen was found to have 0.10 of blood alcohol which is illegal to a minor, especially to one who is driving.
Inexperienced young drivers feel invincible when they drive but the reality is, they may not be equipped with enough skills to make quick decisions and maneuver a vehicle most especially when they are drunk.
The sentencing of the teen will be in early December but many anticipate that it would be much lighter penalty compared to what he will receive if he is tried as an adult.
The unfortunate tragedy should serve as a lesson to all teen drivers to be always cautious and alert while driving. Most importantly, it should outline the result of a vehicle accident that could kill them or their loved ones riding with them.
Racial and color discrimination is not only frowned upon but is also an illegal act.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal race and color discrimination in “every aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, wages, benefits, work assignments, performance evaluations, training, transfer, leave, discipline, layoffs, discharge, and any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.”
For Garland Latta, racial slurs and hostile environment prompted him to file a racial discrimination case against his employer, Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim.
Latta alleged that “monkey” and the n-word were some comments he got from his fellow employees. The case was filed after the management ignored his complaints. Consequently, he stopped receiving his sales credit after reporting the incident.
The suit was filed at the Orange County Superior Court in April. It was only in October that he quit his job due to intolerable working conditions.
Racial discrimination is a sensitive issue which must be addressed immediately. For victims of this illegal practice, a racial discrimination lawyer may be hired to pursue a case against the employer. Other issues on employment laws may be handled well by a legal professional.
Because of the delay in the passage of bill that would extend unemployment benefits, very few (if any at all) would qualify for the full-20-week extension.
Although the bill aims to provide a 20-week extension for states that has a high unemployment rate and 14-weeks for the others, it seems that none of the states may get the full extension.
In California, who has a 12.2% unemployment rate, jobless workers should get 20 full weeks.
But they won’t.
This is because Congress failed to change a sunset provision on the bill.
A sunset provision terminates or repeals portions of the law after a specific date.
It is a complicated matter.
The congress, instead of attaching the additional weeks in one new extension, the bill set up a plan that adds two new extensions to the previous ones before the last extension takes effect.
This is referred to as FedEd.
Congress extended FedEd from 13 to 20 weeks with a sunset provision that takes effect at the end of the year.
After January 1, the FedEd will revert back to 13 weeks.
Confused?? So am I.
Anyway, what it generally means is that even if you could start collecting on the latest extension today, time will run out before you can complete 20 weeks of benefits.
So what should jobless Californians do?
Well, nothing really.
Although a lot of people were expecting 20 weeks, a 14 week extension should be better than nothing.
The other option would be to implore Congress to change the sunset provision, which would probably mean more delays on the benefit.
Since most people have exhausted their unemployment benefits, most will take what they can from this extension.
The wildfire near the 60 Freeway may have been caused by sparks that flew from a defective catalytic converter of a pickup, authorities said.
The wildfire caused a big traffic jam on the 60 and 57 Freeways, as commuters were advised to take alternative routes to their destination.
Several fires started almost at the same time at about 11:45 a.m. and spread to about 50 acres.
It gave a lot of people a scare as most believed that this is another case of arson.
Fire officials announced that the fire was mostly out by 2 pm.
The fire caused 4 smoke inhalation injuries, plus one firefighter being treated for heat exhaustion.
Fire officials later said that an overheated catalytic converter – a device that converts exhaust before it exits the tail pipe- may have triggered the fire.
If that is the case, the manufacturer of the catalytic converter may be held liable for the property damage and personal injuries that the fire caused.
Under the product liability law, if a product is proven to have a safety defect that caused injury or death, the manufacturer of the product will assume responsibility despite the lack of negligence.
Besides, a cataclysmic converter is a device that is supposed to help the environment.
Once it becomes defective, it ceases to serve its purpose and may even cause an environmental accident.
A Mountain View Whisman School district superintendent admitted to having romantic relations with a district principal.
Maurice Ghysels did not disclose though, how long his relationship with Carmen Mizell has been going on, claiming that it’s “a personal matter.”
Carmen Mizell is the principal of Edith Landels Elementary.Both Ghysels and Mizell are going through divorces with their current spouses.
They informed the school board last July; Ghysels through a phone call and Mizell thorugh a letter.
The board then discussed the implications of the relationship including possible conflicts of interest.
The district’s action was to change the administrative structure by removing Mizell under the direct supervision of Ghysels. Her new supervisor would be Superintendent Mary Lairon, who incidentally is reporting directly to Ghysels.
There is no policy concerning personal relationships but the board admitted to at least avoiding it in practice.
Here is an example of what we can use to differentiate sexual harassment from sexual misconduct.
There is no basis for a sexual harassment in this case since Ghysels never created a hostile working environment and Mizell never claimed to have received unwelcome sexual acts.
However, since Ghysels engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate, there may be cause for sexual misconduct.
Sexual misconduct though is not illegal in nature, but it is often against professional codes of ethics.
If the board had a policy for this, then it could have caused him his job.
But since the board admitted that there is none, they will just have to be content in frowning upon the act and make moves to avoid conflict of interests.
Otherwise, if they fire Ghysels, it may be a cause for a wrongful termination lawsuit.
