Exposing the Greatest Corporate Malfeasance?

I am often questioned how the Toyota cases will "end up" in the Court system. No way to tell yet. At least for the class action cases. A recent article by The Wall Street Journal here, said a decision is expected in weeks as to the class action "venue" or where the cases could be consolidated and heard by attorneys vying for the "rights" to lead the charge. 

Ben Barnow of Chicago, an attorney I co-counseled with on another class action years ago, was one of those attorneys who spoke before the "panel" in pleading for jurisdiction of the cases. Most notably was a speech given at lunch time in a "prehearing litigation strategy conference" of the 100 or so attorneys vying for the coveted few minutes to speak at the hearing, as the article represented, represented, by a former Michael Jackson defense attorney, Michael Geragos:

'Everyone in this room is on the precipice of the opportunity to expose the greatest corporate malfeasance,' said Mr. Geragos. 'I would hope everyone in this room could coalesce and come together.'

We are filing individual suits in certain circumstances that may never become part of these class actions and are working with numerous individuals who have experienced sudden, unintended acceleration--and are honored to be able to speak for these traumatized (and some injured) individuals. If you believe you have been injured or suffered any property damage as a result of a potential gas pedal sticking, call us at 312.375.6524 to discuss your particular situation 24/7/365 and we'll determine if we can help.

Toyota Hid Damaging Information per Ex-Toyota Attorney...

In a breaking news story here on CNN, former in-house Toyota defense attorney, Dimitrios Biller, declares that he has some 6,000 internal Toyota documents that are "very damaging." According to the CNN article, Biller claims such documents were routinely withheld from Plaintiff's lawyers in product liability and negligence cases. 

Disturbingly, Biller says:

'There is a regular pattern and practice of not producing memos, minutes, reports, and e-mails,' [and] 'These documents can be used to establish liability against Toyota in product liability and negligence cases.'

One of our clients, Willette Green, reported her sudden, unintended acceleration to Toyota (and NHTSA) in the Fall of 2008 and Toyota denied any defect--a case involving the death of a panhandler who was run over when Willette's Lexus sped out of control. According to the CNN article, Toyota appears to have "Books of Knowledge" or "highly confidential information" related to such issues as sudden, unintended acceleration.

We are working with numerous individuals who have experienced sudden, unintended acceleration--and are honored to be able to speak for these traumatized (and some injured) individuals. If you believe you have been injured or suffered any property damage as a result of a potential gas pedal sticking, call us at 312.375.6524 to discuss your particular situation 24/7/365 and we'll determine if we can help.

2nd Lawsuit Filed Against Toyota...This Time A Death Involved...

 

Today, I filed the second lawsuit in Chicago, Illinois (Cook County Case No. 2010-L-002399) on behalf of Willette Green against Toyota alleging strict liability and negligence. This one involved the death of a pedestrian and injuries to Plaintiff after her 2006 Lexus ES 330 was unable to stop.

The lawsuit alleges:

On August 26, 2008, the Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident at or near the intersection of 22nd Street and the feeder ramp from I-94 in Chicago, Illinois after her gas pedal—in the Lexus at issue and referenced herein—stuck and Plaintiff was unable to stop at the intersection, resulting in the death of a pedestrian, a crash with a third party, property damage and injuries to Plaintiff and others involved.

The lawsuit further alleges:

TOYOTA, by and through its agents, employees or representatives, was then and there guilty of one or more of the following careless negligent acts and/or omissions:

               

a.     carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and sold the above-described Lexus;

b.     carelessly and negligently failed to institute and enforce a policy for review of the automobiles that it designs, manufactures and sells, including the aforestated Lexus, to insure that the Lexus and the vehicles are sold with adequate safeguards and controls; and

c.      was otherwise careless and negligent in the design, manufacture and sale of the above-described Lexus. 

The lawsuit further alleges:

The above-described Lexus was manufactured, sold and placed into the stream of commerce by the Defendant, TOYOTA, in an unsafe and defective condition and was unreasonably dangerous to its users by reason of, among others, the following defects in its design, manufacture, testing and/or marketing:

a.     in designing, manufacturing and providing the vehicle at issue of such construction that it could fail for multiple reasons, including its inability to stop or slow down, during normal foreseeable use;

b.     in failing to provide proper and clear warning of the dangers that the vehicle at issue might fail by not working as advertised and intended, causing injuries and damages to the Plaintiff;

c.      in failing to use available design and engineering skill or knowledge to produce a vehicle that would allow for proper operation;

d.     in failing to provide adequate operating instructions and warnings to Plaintiff who used the vehicle at issue even though the Defendant knew or should have known that such warnings were necessary for the safe use of the vehicle at issue;

e.     in failing to adequately inspect and test the vehicle at issue for safety prior to offering it for sale;

f.      in failing to discover that the vehicle at issue was dangerously defective, improperly designed and manufactured, inadequately tested and inspected, entirely unfit for duty and unsafe for use, constituting a hazard to Plaintiff; and/or

g.    in other respects to be proved at trial.

If you believe you have been injured or suffered any property damage as a result of a potential gas pedal sticking, call us at 312.375.6524 to discuss your particular situation 24/7/365 and we'll determine if we can help.

 

The Attorney That Answers His Own Phone...24/7/365

A colleague of mine, friend and great attorney in Wisconsin, Jonathan Groth, noted the signs of an attorney who listens and cares on his blog here when he said:

I just finished a jury trial in Milwaukee County. During the trial preparation my client and I were talking about how long we’ve known each other. I was the attorney that answered the phone when he called in the very first time soon after the collision. He didn’t talk with a paralegal, 'intake specialist' or secretary. I worked with him since, literally, day one.

Jon went on to note something that is absolutely paramount when choosing a lawyer: 

This kind of service is important to think about when you search/interview for your attorney. Hiring an attorney is a very personal matter. Availability (email, cell phone etc) and personality are extremely important to make sure your attorney will be with you for the long haul. By this I mean potentially to trial. Even though the vast majority of my clients’ cases settle before filing a lawsuit and before trial I think it helps them to know that their attorney will be willing and has the experience to fight at trial.

Like Jon Groth does in Wisconsin, I do in Illinois: you call, I answer the phone--24/7/365. Send an e-mail--you'll get a response. If I don't answer immediately, I either have 3 other calls coming in or am in front of a Judge or in a deposition and I guarantee you will receive a return call that day or evening. Your issues matter. Make sure your attorney answers his or her phone--and listens.

First Suit Against Toyota in Chicago and Illinois...

According to Robert Langendorf, one of the attorneys for Mr. Izenstark, and an attorney I am working with on Toyota cases, we believe we have filed the first suit against Toyota in Chicago and perhaps Illinois for the gas pedal problem. Mr. Langendorf was quoted in the front page of the Business Section of the Chicago Tribune on February 6, 2010 here

In addition, unique to this case is that we also sued Hertz for renting the vehicle to the Plaintiff when it 'knew, or should have known about dangerous issues with Toyotas or the Toyota recall or intended recall.' 

If you believe you have been injured or suffered any property damage as a result of a potential gas pedal sticking, call us at 312.375.6524 to discuss your particular situation 24/7/365 and we'll determine if we can help.

Suit Filed Against Toyota For Gas Pedal Sticking...

Today, we filed a lawsuit in Chicago, Illinois (Cook County Case No. 2010-L-001675) against Toyota and Hertz alleging strict liability and negligence. Hertz actually rented the 2010 Toyota Corolla long after Toyota noted potential problems with gas pedals in various models.

The lawsuit alleges:

TOYOTA, by and through its agents, employees or representatives, was then and there guilty of one or more of the following careless negligent acts and/or omissions:

a.      carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and sold the above-described Corolla;

 

b.     carelessly and negligently failed to institute and enforce a policy for review of the automobiles that it designs, manufactures and sells, including the aforestated Corolla, to insure that the Corolla and the vehicles are sold with adequate safeguards and controls; and

 

c.      was otherwise careless and negligent in the design, manufacture and sale of the above-described Corolla.

The lawsuit further alleges:

The above-described Corolla was manufactured, sold and placed into the stream of commerce by the Defendant, TOYOTA, in an unsafe and defective condition and was unreasonably dangerous to its users by reason of, among others, the following defects in its design, manufacture, testing and/or marketing:

a.     in designing, manufacturing and providing the vehicle at issue of such construction that it could fail for multiple reasons, including its inability to stop or slow down, during normal foreseeable use;

 

b.     in failing to provide proper and clear warning of the dangers that the vehicle at issue might fail by not working as advertised and intended, causing injuries and damages to the Plaintiff;

 

c.      in failing to use available design and engineering skill or knowledge to produce a vehicle that would allow for proper operation;

 

d.     in failing to provide adequate operating instructions and warnings to Plaintiff who used the vehicle at issue even though the Defendant knew or should have known that such warnings were necessary for the safe use of the vehicle at issue;

 

e.     in failing to adequately inspect and test the vehicle at issue for safety prior to offering it for sale;

 

f.      in failing to discover that the vehicle at issue was dangerously defective, improperly designed and manufactured, inadequately tested and inspected, entirely unfit for duty and unsafe for use, constituting a hazard to Plaintiff; and/or

 

g.    in other respects to be proved at trial.

The lawsuit further alleges:

HERTZ, by and through its agents, employees or representatives, was then and there guilty of one or more of the following careless negligent acts and/or omissions:

a.      carelessly and negligently rented, cared, maintained and serviced the above-described Corolla;

 

b.     carelessly and negligently failed to institute and enforce a policy for review of the automobiles that it rents, including the aforestated Corolla, to insure that the vehicles are rented with adequate safeguards and controls or that such vehicles, including the Corolla at issue, is safe to entrust to its customers;

 

c.      carelessly and negligently made the vehicle available for rent knowing, or in a situation where it should have known, of problems with the Corolla at issue or the Toyota recall or future, intended recall; and

 

d.     was otherwise careless and negligent in the rental, care, maintenance and service of the above-described Corolla. 

If you believe you have been injured or suffered any property damage as a result of a potential gas pedal sticking, call us at 312.375.6524 to discuss your particular situation 24/7/365 and we'll determine if we can help.

 

Toyota Gas Pedals Admittedly Sticking...

According to a Toyota press release, Toyota intends to recall 2.3 million vehicles to fix accelerator or gas pedals. Toyota claims its engineers "have developed and rigorously tested a solution that involves reinforcing the pedal assembly in a manner that eliminates the excess friction that has caused the pedals to stick in rare instances." 

Jim Lentz, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.'s President and Chief Operating Officer, has stated:

We know what’s causing the sticking accelerator pedals, and we know what we have to do to fix it. 

Per Toyota, vehicles affected by the recall include:

• Certain 2009-2010 RAV

• Certain 2009-2010 Corolla

• 2009-2010 Matrix

• 2005-2010 Avalon

• Certain 2007-2010 Camry

• Certain 2010 Highlander

• 2007-2010 Tundra

• 2008-2010 Sequoia 

If you believe you have been injured or suffered any property damage as a result of a potential gas pedal sticking, call us at 312.375.6524 to discuss your particular situation 24/7/365 and we'll determine if we can help.

Insurance Company? Witnesses? Should You Talk to them?

After an auto or other accident (auto, malpractice, slip and fall--or any incident such as a breach of contract, sexual harassment incident, assault and battery, nursing home negligence and abuse or any incident you can possibly imagine), insurance companies will most likely be the first to contact you. Next, will be other individuals or entities--all trying to investigate and obtain information to build a defense against any potential claim you may have.

Whether you should talk to the insurance company (or any other person or entity) is basically a judgment call on your part; however, you should simply consult with an attorney first and ask the insurance company or other investigator that your attorney be present on a teleconference call to protect your rights. You generally have a duty to cooperate with your own insurance company under your policy.

And if another party's insurance company contacts you, a witness or other investigator, you are generally not required to talk to at all--and should not without an attorney present. A third party's insurance company or other investigator will most likely take down notes, or worse, record the conversation and then try to build a defense in your case or use every single word you say against you 6 months, 1 year, 2 years later in your case. In addition, defendant's insurance companies will try to "push" low settlement offers--sometimes $500.00 or $1,000.00 when your medical bills could quickly escalate over those amounts after an accident.

As for witnesses or other investigators, you should absolutely consult with an attorney first. The attorney should be involved to take a witness statement if possible for preservation of thoughts and observations while they are fresh in everyone's minds. Again, such statements can greatly impact your case and you should get all contact information from a witness immediately at the scene of an accident--the more telephone numbers, the better!

If you are unsure of who to speak with, simply pick up the phone and call us at 312-375-6524 (24/7/365--and we really mean that!) for two minutes. We can help and those two minutes could impact your case significantly

In 2010: Texting / E-Mail Will Now Get You a Ticket! Just Don't Do It!

Effective January 1, 2010, using your mobile device can get you a ticket, but worse, they cause accidents which sometimes cause injuries to you and others for life. Bottom line, wait to use your mobile device, focus on the road and be respectful of others around you--especially while doing 65 m.p.h. down the highway. Mobile devices are shown to cause distractions and having handled numerous auto accidents, our firm learns that Defendants were often using mobile devices just before an accident and our clients pay dearly with life-altering injuries.

Illinois House Bills 71 and 72 were signed in August of 2009 by Governor Pat Quinn and according to a summary of the laws on the State of Illinois web site here

The new laws ban motorists from sending text messages while driving in Illinois, and make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving through a highway construction zone or school zone.  In addition, it will become illegal to compose, send or read text messages, instant messages and e-mail on a cell phone or surf the internet while driving.  The ban also includes personal digital assistants and portable or mobile computers, but does not include global positioning systems (GPS) or navigation systems.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, driver distraction from all sources contributes to 25 percent of all police-reported traffic crashes. If you have a youth driver in the home, take 5 minutes and explain the ramifications of using a mobile device while driving. Plead with them to wait a few minutes before using their mobile devices. And even adults need to put the devices down, keep their eyes on the road and help make the roads a safer place for all.

If you are in an automobile accident and you believe the person who hit you was using a mobile device, pointedly ask the person (if you can have a civil conversation with him or her) if they were using a cell phone or texting when they hit you. If they admit it, tell the police officer that comes to the scene to at least make a note of it in the police report even if the police do not issue a ticket and ask the police officer to confirm the conversation. Contact us 24/7/365 (and we really mean that as wewill answer our phone) if you have any questions about how such an accident could affect your claim against that driver. 

PASSION - INTEGRITY - TRUST - RESULTS

PASSION - INTEGRITY - TRUST - RESULTS

Taking a personal injury matter where a man, a woman or a child has been injured (slightly or significantly) requires, first and foremost, passion and empathy. If a lawyer cannot truly understand the suffering (again, small or significant) that another human being is enduring, the lawyer cannot demonstrate or exhibit to every person, insurance company and, ultimately, the jury how that suffering has affected a person's life.

The same holds true when a person or company is cheated out of money. When money owed is not paid. When a person or a company is wrongfully sued and must be zealously defended. Money cheated, money owed and wrongful or frivolous lawsuits cause suffering in a person's life as well. People can't sleep at night. People worry. They cannot focus on their jobs, their family, life in general. People lose their homes because bills aren't getting paid. Credit is ruined. Family arguments erupt.

A person's life in personal injury situations is even more dramatically affected when even a hurt back or a hurt neck makes it next to impossible to sit at a desk all day long at work or perform manual labor--whichever life calling a person follows. Sometimes "calling off" from the pain results in a lost job and a downward spiral of a lost home, lost relationships, lost life. The things you used to enjoy you can enjoy no longer. It wasn't your fault.

Your lawyer needs to truly understand all of these aspects of how a personal injury matter or business dispute has affected your life. Aggressive and zealous representation and empathy are an absolute must. An attentive ear--listening to you--is the only way a lawyer can fully comprehend the situation. Phil Berenz listens.

Integrity is doing the "right thing when nobody is looking." Your lawyer must handle every aspect, every conversation of your matter with the utmost integrity-when you are not on the phone and when you are not present. Trust must be unequivocally paramount.

And, finally, while a lawyer can never guarantee a particular outcome in any matter, the passion, integrity and trust will usually (not always) end in positive, productive results.

Illinois State Police Speed Policy Change in Response to Deaths

The Illinois State Police is instituting a new speed policy that calls for a "four tier response code system" beginning January 1, 2009. Read the facts of the new policy here. After two sisters were killed when an Illinois State Police Trooper's squad car crossed an I-64 median last November, Illinois State Police felt it was time to institute a policy to prevent future tragedies. Notably, this is only the second state in the nation to implement such speed policies and as the Illinois State Police points out:

The policy will institute a four-tier response code system for officers responding to calls for service. This policy will outline the use of emergency equipment and the speed and manner in which the officer will respond to a call, including supervisory notification when the responding officer intends to exceed the posted speed limit more than 20 mph. Supervisors will also be required to monitor the incident as it evolves and make appropriate changes in their officers’ response code as necessary. 

Pursuing another vehicle "at all costs" is simply unacceptable. Hopefully, this policy will prevent future tragedies.

Gruesome Photographs: Admissible at Trial?

At trial time, Defendants may make a motion before the Court to exclude gruesome photographs of injuries. However, simply because the photograph(s) may be gruesome and possibly cause prejudice in the minds of the jury is no reason to exclude the photograph(s). See e.g. Burnett v. Caho, 7 Ill.App.3d 266, 272 (3rd Dist. 1972). Admissibility is within the discretion of the trial judge and it is common practice to display personal injuries to the jury "even though there is no controversy as to the existence, nature and extent thereof." See id. For example, it has even been held to include the right to show an injured eyeball that has been removed and it is not error to permit the plaintiff to display his injuries to the jury and to testify briefly while so doing. See id.

Generally speaking, such exhibits are admissible if the probative value of the exhibits is not outweighed by their inflammatory effect. See Drews v. Gobel Freight Lines, Inc., 144 Ill.2d 84, 99 (Ill. 1991). In Drews, the plaintiff introduced photographs of a decedent taken at a morgue to support Plaintiff's claim for decedent's pain and suffering. One of the photographs even showed multiple lacerations to the decedent's face and throat, and the other photograph showed a gaping wound and burns to a knee. Similar to the Burnett case, the Illinois Supreme Court in Drews held that in spite of the fact that a photo may be gruesome or inflammatory, the trial judge may admit it for the probative value in assisting the jury's determination of the extent of pain and suffering. See id.

The Person Who Hit Me Received a Ticket! Won't the Jury Hear About That?!

Many individuals who are in accidents often ask me whether the jury will hear that the defendant received a ticket in relation to the accident. They would love for the jury to hear that! They are often surprised to hear me say "absolutely not." In fact, I tell them that the Judge--prior to the trial even beginning--makes decisions on whether such issues will ever be heard by the jury. These decisions by the Judge are based on what are known as "Motions in Limine." Motions in Limine are specific requests brought by both parties to prevent the mention of, question of, reference to, inquiry of, suggestion of--directly or indirectly--certain evidentiary issues. The rationale for excluding certain issues such as traffic tickets is, among other reasons, to prevent unfair prejudice to a party. Defendants routinely demand that evidence of traffic tickets be excluded from admissibility before the jury unless, generally speaking, a proper foundation is made as to a defendant pleading guilty (as opposed to being found guilty) and a certified copy of the guilty plea being made available at trial time. Even then, there is no guarantee a Judge will allow a guilty plea to a traffic ticket to be heard by the jury depending upon the specific circumstances of the situation. If the Judge rules that no evidence of traffic tickets will be admissible and a plaintiff (or his attorney or potentially other witnesses) mentions the ticket, the defendant's attorney will most likely move for an immediate mistrial!