Honda Motor Company recently revealed in an audit that it had underreported defects through the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) system. EWR is a means for automakers to disclose defect claims that result in injuries or deaths. This system has obvious importance for informing government agencies which vehicles pose the greatest risks, and may be subject to recall.
Over Two-thirds of Vehicle Defects Are Omitted From Reports
For the ten-year period from 2003-2014 Honda reported 900 defects through the EWR, but in actuality they omitted almost 1800 defect reports on their vehicles. By only reporting one-third of the potentially defective cars, Honda placed drivers and passengers of their vehicles at risk in order to avoid populating the EWR reports with the full total of defective cars.
It is easy to see why an auto manufacturer would be motivated to make the EWR reports appear more favorable. Defect recalls are expensive and often entail negative publicity for the automaker depending on the extent of the recall. General Motors had a similar tactic involving their now famous ignition switch case, where they hid the defect from regulators and consumers for 10 years. GM now faces billions of dollars worth of law suits and Honda will pay fines in the millions for the EWR omissions.
The Cost of Underreporting May Be Less Than an Expensive Recall
Although automakers know that they will eventually reveal the full extent of their vehicle defects and pay large fines, the cost savings from avoiding wide spread recalls and repairs may offset those expenses. Of course, lawsuits and settlements have to be figured into the equation, but it is not unprecedented for an automaker to analyze the cost of personal injury and wrongful death suits related to a known defect.
Regulators are attempting to take a more aggressive approach with the fines and audits available, but automakers are largely self-monitoring in this area making compliance difficult. Honda claims the omissions were inadvertent and the result of a computer programming flaw, but an omission of this size over many years reflects more than a tracking problem. There were instances where Honda received defect information from police accident reports, and still failed to notify regulators.
The obvious intent is to avoid regulator scrutiny and decrease the number of investigations into an automaker’s vehicle defects. No business enjoys third party oversight of its products or manufacturing process, but absent the EWR system there is no other way to find defects in a vehicle before they become a widespread safety hazard.
If automakers fail to report the defects, there may be a series of accidents, injuries or deaths before the problem becomes obvious. This is the case of the Takata airbag defect now spurring recalls around the world. Unfortunately, several people had to die before the manufacturer came forward and disclosed that there was a design and manufacturing issue causing the airbag explosions. The only recourse now is for those injured to file lawsuits and attempt to recover compensation.
As of this month, there is a national rule change for truckers that could undermine the safety of large commercial trucks on the highway, just as truck accidents are on the rise. Until now, truckers were required to make pre and post-trip inspections of their vehicles, even if there were no obvious problems or defects. This was designed to detect any potential problems in the truck before they became larger and apt to cause an accident.
The new rule effective December 18th, eliminates the requirement for inspections, unless there is a known defect in the truck. The so called ‘no-defect reports’ are being eliminated to save the truckers time in filing the paperwork with their carrier. This is undoubtedly more convenient for the trucker, but carries risks that potential problems with the maintenance or mechanical upkeep could go undetected.
Trucking and Motor Carrier Organizations Support the Rule Change
Not surprisingly, the trucker member organizations support eliminating this bureaucratic filing of inspection reports, in the interest of saving time for truckers trying to meet deadlines for delivery of goods. While this may have that effect, it does place the nation’s trucking fleet on the highways without regular safety inspections by the truckers themselves.
The National Transportation Safety Board opposed the rule change with concerns for highway safety, but proponents countered by stating there was no data or information to show that safety would be reduced. Of course, there is no data because inspections have always been required and so there is no historical precedent for comparison.
No More Duty to Inspect For Safety
The legal problem this presents is that a trucker’s failure to inspect and maintain their vehicle will no longer be required, and in any resulting accident it would be more difficult to establish fault. In essence, the trucker no longer has a duty for making regular inspections, and only has to file a report if there is a ‘defect’. The use of the word defect is also problematic, since it typically refers to flaws in design or manufacture. However, simple wear and tear, or unusual stresses to the vehicle would not be covered by this definition.
Many truck accidents are caused by driver error or fatigue, and not mechanical problems. But now, any accident that results from a vehicle malfunction would potentially insulate the driver from liability since there is no duty to inspect, which only leaves the motor carrier as a defendant. Some carriers are aware of the liability problem, and will continue to require the inspection reports as company policy regardless of the time it takes the trucker to compile the report.
The motor carrier’s associations have a powerful presence given all of the transport of goods by truck on the highways. Nonetheless, every time one sees a large truck on the road, it will be a safe assumption that the vehicle has not been inspected for some time. It is hard to conceive that this wont decrease highway safety for other motorists, with the largest vehicles carrying unknown mechanical problems until an accident occurs.
In this year alone, there were over 700 recalls of defective autos, affecting nearly 60 million vehicles. Some of those defective autos or parts resulted in deaths, that could have been prevented by higher quality design or manufacturing processes.
A few examples of the auto recalls include:
Any of these types of recalls could result in a vehicle stalling, being unable to stop, interference with steering or potential explosions. It is for this reason that the recall system is in place, to allow manufacturers the opportunity to correct defects and restore a level of safe operation.
GM Ignition Switch Recall Tops the LIst
The most notable recall of 2014 was by General Motors that recalled millions of cars with faulty ignition switches. The switches would slip out of the ‘run’ position and disable power brakes and steering, frequently causing an accident. The worst part of this recall is that GM knew of the defect for 10 years before issuing the recall. At least 35 deaths have been blamed on the faulty switches and GM is facing billions of dollars worth of claims from victims. They have also paid a $35 million fine for the delay.
This is one of the most egregious instances of automaker disregard for the lives of passengers, and demonstrates why the inspection and recall process is so vital. However, one must question in today’s high tech manufacturing environment, why do recalls continue to rise?
Are Cars More Defective or Is the Recall Process Improved?
It seems unlikely that the auto industry is putting out more defective vehicles than in the past, given the emphasis on design and manufacture for greater vehicle safety. In the GM case, they covered up a design flaw for obvious financial reasons, but current standards have improved in the past ten years. The more plausible explanation is the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration has stepped up its inspection and recall process in an effort to improve vehicle safety.
However, just because a vehicle is placed on a recall list does not mean that owner will bring the car in for repair. In that case, it is difficult for one injured in an accident to blame the automaker. Although automakers have a duty to make reasonably safe cars, they do not have a duty to make perfectly safe cars. Owners have a responsibility to make recommended repairs or modifications in a recall, and if they fail to act that could be a barrier to any legal claim arising from an accident.
Recalls play an important role in detecting design or manufacture defects, but can only be effective if the owners comply with the recall. 2014 was either the worst year for vehicle safety by displaying the flaws in cars on the highway, or it was the best year, for identifying potential defects that could have resulted in many accidents and injuries.
Airbags were originally invented and placed in vehicles in order to prevent injuries and save lives. There have been concerns in the past about airbags deploying prematurely, and causing injuries to passengers. But now a different problem exists, as three of Japan’s largest automakers have begun to recall vehicles that used a defective airbag made by Takata, a Japanese manufacturer.
Airbag Inflators Exploding on Impact
The problem is that the airbag inflators are exploding when the airbag is deployed, shooting metal and glass into the occupants of the car. The Japanese automakers are making the recall despite the fact there have been no problems with their own vehicles, except when cars are being scrapped. This follows at least five deaths and many injuries caused by Takata airbags in other vehicles worldwide.
In one incident in Malaysia, a pregnant woman was killed in a collision when the airbag deployed, and then the inflator fired a one-inch shard of metal into her neck. This scenario has been repeated enough for federal regulators to urge all cars with Takata airbags be recalled in the US, and the company was recently called before a senate hearing to explain it response to the problem. Oversight and regulation of manufacturers is less stringent in Japan, Takata’s home country.
Who Is Responsible for Injuries?
In cases such as this where there is a defective part in a vehicle that causes injury, there are two possible defendants. The most obvious is the manufacturer of the part, or in this case the airbag. Takata controls the design and manufacture of its airbags, and is accountable for any defects that might exist. It is interesting to note that in Japan, class actions for personal injury lawsuits were permitted only beginning two years ago, allowing manufacturers more latitude in avoiding widespread legal claims. If a Takata airbag were to cause injury or death in the US, Takata could be named as a defendant in a lawsuit.
The other potential plaintiffs are the auto manufacturers who installed the airbags and then sold them to the consumer. Typically, the auto companies would only be liable if they knew the part to be defective and a danger to consumers. This is why there is the mass recall by these manufacturers, now that Takata airbags are known to be defective, auto makers cant claim a lack of knowledge. For any injuries that occurred prior to widespread publicity about the defect, it would be more difficult to assign liability to the manufacturer unless there were some facts indicating that they could have known before the accident occurred.
Defective vehicles cause injuries every day, but it is more problematic when the injury is caused by a defective part made by a different company. However, the basic premise is to trace the cause of the accident and then hold that party primarily responsible, while also including any auto manufacturers who may be partially at fault.
Under intense scrutiny for its failure over more than 10 years to conduct a recall and warn buyers of a dangerous GM ignition switch problem as cars crashed and people died, General Motors currently seems to be acting more proactive regarding vehicle defects. Though not without some serious prodding from the federal government.
For instance, just about 10 days ago, GM announced its 24th recall of the year, and its 6th recall for that very week. Our Houston auto defect lawyers note that we are not even half-way through the year yet, so there may be many more recalls to come as the company (we hope) takes a hard look at manufacturing defects and the dangers and liabilities they present.
This 24th recall of the year only affected around 8,200 cars, but brought the company up to an annual total of more than 11 million recalled GM cars and trucks so far. Toyota, which conducted high-profile recalls of several millions of vehicles over the last couple of years, is probably breathing a sigh of relief that some of the attention for huge numbers of recalls has switched to another company.
GM’s 24th recall of the year affects the 2014 Chevy Malibu and Buick LaCrosse. In these vehicles, rear brake rotors were installed by mistake on the front of the cars. You might know that rear rotors are thinner and their brake pads will wear faster and possibly lose contact with the brake calipers. When this happens, longer stopping distances as well as brake failure could occur, leading to crashes and possible injuries or fatalities.
GM says it has not received any reports of injuries or crashes due to the defect yet. The company told its dealers to stop delivering the vehicles on May 1st. It said that dealers will inspect the vehicles and replace or repair their brake rotors and pads if necessary at no charge to the customer. (Rob Maaddi, Associated Press via www.fox19.com, 5/16/14)
After finally recalling the more than 2.5 million vehicles with a deadly ignition switch problem earlier this year, GM has launched a thorough safety review. Our Houston auto defect lawyers emphasize that the company has also had to pay a $35 million federal fine for hiding the defect and has additionally had to agree to give federal authorities greater oversight of its safety procedures.
Given that many of the defects seem to relate to mistakes in design and at the points of assembly and manufacture, GM and other companies might want to reexamine the policy of paying large wages and benefits to auto workers who don’t do their jobs properly and who end up endangering the lives of everyone on the road with such mistakes. Seriously, if teachers must be subject to “merit pay,” why not auto workers and vehicle parts suppliers?
Contact the Houston Auto Defect Lawyers at Denena Points, PC if a Defect in Your GM Vehicle has injured You
If you or a loved one has been injured because of an automaker’s assembly, manufacturing or design defect, you might be entitled to a full financial recovery from that company for your needless injuries. At Denena Points, PC, our Houston auto defect lawyers have more than 15 years of experience holding automakers accountable for the needless injuries accident victims sustain due to safety defects.
Contact us for a free, no obligation, initial legal consultation. We will meet with you to discuss your specific case and to evaluate your eligibility for full financial compensation from the automaker. If you choose to hire us to pursue your case, we don’t charge you any attorney’s fees unless we win your claim for you. So contact us today to schedule your free legal consultation. You can reach us at 713-807-9500 or anytime through our online contact form.
Does your vehicle use an electronic key fob rather than the traditional metal key? Can you start your car at the press of a button on the fob or by slotting your key into the dashboard rather than inserting it into a traditional ignition and turning the tumbler?
Back when the traditional metal key was the only type available, Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 114, which became law in 1992, required that a vehicle’s transmission be in “Park” before the key could be removed from the ignition. Our Houston auto defect lawyers mention that this provision was intended to prevent the accidental rollaway of your vehicle and the serious or fatal rollaway accidents that might cause.
But when the NHTSA has expanded its definition of a vehicle “key” beyond the traditional metal variety to include the electronic code that allows remote access activation of the ignition, that standard no longer covered all “keys.” The NHTSA indicated that expanding the definition of “key” to include the electronic code keys fits with the agency’s goal of not discouraging innovation in motor vehicle technology.
And some of the automakers that use the electronic key fobs made the extra effort of including an electronic safeguard that requires your transmission to be in Park before the key is removed. But our Houston auto defect lawyers caution that not all of them took that additional step. There was a lawsuit filed against Nissan a few years ago due to the rollaway dangers posed and accidents that had resulted from the automaker’s electronic code key that didn’t have such a safeguard. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed because the court found that “key” to be in compliance with the standards in effect at the time. An electronic code could be a key. (Christopher Jensen, New York Times, 2/10/2011) But because it wasn’t the traditional metal variety of key it didn’t have to comply with the 1992 Standard 114 that governed metal keys.
All seven 2010 and 2011 vehicles that used the electronic code key and that were tested by the Consumers Union allowed the engine to be turned off by the driver even as the transmission remained in the Neutral or Drive position. But the vehicles did give audible warnings of the safety lapse. Despite the warning, this could still present a rollaway danger. And this quirk of electronic code keys might also present the possibilities of theft, carbon monoxide poisoning, and issues with turning off moving vehicles in an emergency.
Automakers often forge ahead with new technologies and designs before they have fully worked out possible safety hazards resulting from the innovations. And so we end up with vehicles that have hidden tire defects, fuel system defects, ignition switch defects, and other problems that result in rollovers, rollaways, engine fires, air bag failures, and other dangers that could lead to serious injury or loss of life. Some defects have been linked to hundreds of deaths.
The Houston auto defect lawyers at Denena Points, PC urge you to check your vehicle for hazards that have led to recall. Go to the government recall website here and enter your year, make, and model and see if there are any hazards of which you might not be aware. Especially if you bought your vehicle used, you might not have received recall notices that the manufacturer sends out. Of course, even if your vehicle comes up recall-free, that doesn’t mean that it is free of hidden defects and dangers. That just means they haven’t been brought to light yet.
A recent bit of news on the internet (Justin Hyde, Rusted brake lines in GM pickups demonstrate the twilight zone of auto safety, Motoramic – Yahoo) pointed out that there could be another serious problem lurking in GM vehicles that could cause serious crashes: rusted brake lines on many GM pickup trucks and SUVs. Like the deadly ignition switch problem on Chevy Cobalts and other GM vehicles, this problem has been known and reported for years.
In fact, the NHTSA currently counts its analysis of the brake line rusting problem as its longest open investigation (and the 2nd longest in the agency’s history), but nothing has been done and no recall has been issued. Our Houston auto defect lawyers point out that GM was aware of the ignition switch defect since at least 2001, and was also aware of numerous crashes, some fatal, but the recall on that problem was only issued in recent weeks.
On the GM vehicles with the brake line defect, which include the Sierra and the Silverado pickup, the steel pipes that send brake fluid between the wheels and the control pumps could rust, leading to brake fluid leaks, brake failures, and crashes. The problem is especially acute up in the northern states where salt on icy roads in winter can speed up the rusting process. GM vehicle owners and even mechanics have been reporting the problem since about 2000. And most complaints are on vehicles made from 1999 to 2006, but even some newer GM vehicles are susceptible,
The NHTSA began its investigation into the problem in March 2010 after 763 complaints, 26 crashes, and 3 injuries. The investigation has indicated that in at least 25% of the cases, the brake system failed without warning while the vehicle was traveling in the road.
GM says that the rusting brake lines are not really a problem because the vehicles have separate circuits that should still bring the vehicle to a halt if one brake line fails, and that dash board warning lights and brake fluid leaks should be enough to warn drivers in advance of impending disaster. (The Houston auto defect lawyers at Denena Points, PC reiterate that the NHTSA investigation indicated that in at least 25% of the cases, the brake system failed without warning while the vehicle was traveling in the road. So apparently there aren’t enough advance warnings and redundant systems to prevent sudden system failures and resulting vehicle wrecks and injuries.)
In January 2011, the NHTSA upgraded its investigation to an engineering analysis, generally the last step before a recall. But that was more than 3 years ago, and still no recall has been issued.
Business concerns should not trump safety concerns. Even if GM is one of the largest domestic automakers, the size of its production should not allow it to get a free pass to send inferior and potentially dangerous products out to market. GM has already partially shielded itself from liabilities (at least on wrecks that occurred before July 2009) by declaring bankruptcy. It’s unfortunate that the company can’t create a similarly impregnable shield for its vehicle owners who might face dangerous crashes from hidden defects in their cars, trucks, and SUVs.
Click the link to learn about what you can do if you or your family suffers injury in a crash because of a defective GM vehicle.
Did your ignition switch turn off the car while you were driving and cause a crash? Contact the Houston ignition switch defect attorneys at Denena Points, PC for a free legal consultation. You might be eligible for a full financial recovery from GM and the ignition switch manufacturer because of the auto defect that led to the needless harm you suffered.
GM recently recalled 1.6 million Chevy Cobalts, Saturn Ions, Chevy HHRs, Pontiac Solstices, and Pontiac G5s. GM has since added more vehicles to the recall, and the number of potentially lethal defective vehicles now reaches almost 3 million. A defect in the ignition switch can cause the engine to turn off or to the accessory position while the car is in motion. Even something as simple as a heavy key ring or a bump in the road can cause this to happen. And without electrical power, your power steering and power brakes fail, and the airbags don’t deploy.
GM attributes 12 deaths to the problem. But our Houston ignition switch defect attorneys point out that another study has linked more than 300 deaths and many more hundreds of injuries to failure of the airbags to deploy in these GM vehicles. A U.S. Senator is calling out GM for engaging in a culture of “cover up” in relation to the defect. The U.S. NHTSA is also under fire for its failure to recognize the GM ignition switch/airbag deployment problems sooner and issue a recall.
GM has known of the problem since at least 2001, but failed to properly correct it or to recall the vehicles until just weeks ago. A GM engineer in 2007 approved tightening of a spring in the ignition switch by Delphi, the maker of the switch. The tighter spring could prevent the sudden shut off of vehicle engines due to the ignition switch falling out of position.
But the new, corrected part received the exact same part number for the market as the defective switch, so it is now virtually impossible to track down which GM vehicles have a potentially lethal ignition switch defect and which are OK. The part was sold separately in the spare parts market and also installed into vehicles at the factory. And because of the failure to re-number the new, improved switch, some vehicles might have been “repaired” with an ignition switch as defective as the one it replaced, adding gross insult to potential injury. (Peter Morgan, Reuters, 3/26/14)
Our Houston ignition switch defect attorneys emphasize that the long delay in issuing a recall for the defective ignition switch indicates that GM puts profits ahead of your safety. The failure of the NHTSA to do anything about such a widespread GM ignition switch problem might indicate that the safety watchdog also is not as concerned about your safety as it should be.
You should hold GM and Delphi accountable for the injuries and losses you’ve suffered as a result of the long delay in addressing a deadly defect. Only by making negligent manufacturers pay for their crimes can we help ensure that they won’t knowingly commit further defective products to the market that will endanger you and your loved ones.
Call the Houston ignition switch defect attorneys at Denena Points, PC today for a free, initial legal consultation to discuss your accident and evaluate your potential eligibility for a full financial recovery for the needless harm you’ve suffered as a result of an ignition switch defect or an airbag that didn’t deploy in the recalled GM vehicles. Reach us at 713-807-9500 or through our online contact form. Put our more than 12 years of experience holding negligent automakers financially accountable to injured victims behind your claim.
Drivers and Passengers known to be at Risk since at least 2001
You may remember that in mid-February General Motors recalled almost 800,000 vehicles for ignition switch problems linked to multiple accident deaths. At the time, GM said it had linked 12 deaths in slightly over 30 accidents to the defect. Our Houston GM ignition switch recall lawyers point out that a study by the Center for Auto Safety has since linked over 300 front-seat deaths to the defect. The study noted over 1,100 deaths in all, including back seat passengers, in just two of the 6 GM models with the GM fatal ignition switch defect.
A few weeks after that initial mid-February recall, GM recalled 4 additional models of vehicle that used the same faulty ignition switch, bringing the total number of recalled vehicles to around 1.6 million. The defect causes the ignition switch to turn from “run” to “off” if it’s jarred by a rough road or pulled out of place by a heavy key ring. The sudden engine shut down can lead to serious crashes and rollovers. And because active electrical power is lost when the engine shuts down, the airbags don’t deploy when the vehicle crashes. Our Houston GM ignition switch recall lawyers note that one news report also detailed how the fatal injuries to a driver indicated that the seatbelt might not have locked properly either.
Why an Ignition Switch Problem leads to Fatal Airbag Problems
The Chief Research Officer for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety clarifies how the ignition switch defect is connected to the failure of airbags to deploy. To deploy, airbags need electrical power from the engine. Airbags rely on a complex, computerized system of sensors that analyze data including how close a person is sitting to the airbag and how fast a vehicle is decelerating. This data analysis influences whether the airbag deploys with full force or at a lower level, trying to balance protection from crash injuries with protection from being injured by the airbag itself. (Danielle Ivory, Hilary Stoutmarch, Bill Vlasic, and Christopher Jensen, nytimes.com, 3/12/14)
GM Offers to Angry and Concerned Owners of the Defective Vehicles
Faced with backlash as people realize their safety has been at risk all the years the defect has been known but not addressed, GM is now offering free loaner cars to owners of the recalled vehicles until the parts are available to fix them. The company is also offering $500 towards purchase of a new GM vehicle, in case owners of the defective models want to trade them in.
If I owned one of these defective vehicles (and I almost did; I almost purchased a 2007 HHR), I might be hesitant to purchase another GM vehicle. After all, GM has admitted it has known of this ignition switch defect since at least 2001, but it failed to address it until 13 years later. And a research study commissioned by the Center for Auto Safety has found at least 303 front seat deaths linked to the failure of airbags to deploy in the recalled vehicles.
Research Study finds more than 300 Deaths in only 2 of the Recalled Models where Airbags didn’t Deploy
That research study focused only on the Chevy Cobalt and the Pontiac G5, which were recalled on February 13th. GM has since added 4 other models to the recall. Click the link to read our FAQ response listing the GM vehicles recalled for the deadly ignition switch problem. Presumably further study involving these 4 models would show a pattern of hundreds of additional deaths from the ignition switch malfunction. But GM is still saying it only links 11 or 12 deaths to the problem. The Houston GM ignition switch recall lawyers at Denena Points, PC emphasize that this is still 11 or 12 too many!
GM has not offered a satisfactory explanation about why it only added the other 4 vehicles to the recall list weeks after recalling the Chevy Cobalt and the Pontiac G5, when all 6 models use the same faulty ignition switch. Nor has GM offered a satisfactory explanation about why it did not issue a recall or move to fix the problem earlier, when the company admits it has known of the defect since at least 2001. At one point several years ago, GM even offered ignition switch fixes to its dealers for buyers of the affected vehicles. But only around 450 of the vehicles ever received the proffered fix.
Faced with an escalating situation and the need for damage control, GM management is trying to characterize “today’s General Motors” and “current GM management” as separate and more caring and concerned about your safety than past GM management, which that approach suggests could not have cared less about your safety. From a PR standpoint, I’m not sure that trying to shift the blame to a nebulous past era of GM management really helps the company’s image. But I get why they are doing it.
And What has the NHTSA been doing about the Safety Risk all this Time? Nothing
Curiously, the NHTSA, the U.S. agency charged with ensuring auto safety, also failed to do anything about the serious problem. This suggests that the NHTSA too might not care about your safety so much as it cares about GM. The Center for Auto Safety has sent a letter to the NHTSA with the results of its research, criticizing the agency for failing to do its job in protecting the public from the fatal ignition switch problem. 303 deaths and probably many more injuries seem to warrant at least a second look regarding a possible defect trend. An earlier investigation of the problem by the NHTSA might have saved scores of lives.
Do you remember the controversy involving the Ford Explorer and Firestone tire combo that was linked to about 250 rollover accident deaths and thousands of severe injuries? That controversy too, went on for a decade or more, with Ford blaming Firestone, and Firestone blaming Ford, but without adequate solutions for the many drivers and passengers affected by the Firestone tire-bearing Ford Explorer’s dangerous propensity for rollovers.
Don’t let Automakers get away with Risking your Safety: Contact Us to Learn about Your Legal Options and Potential Eligibility for Financial Recovery
When automakers and regulatory agencies are slow to act in recalling defective vehicles, people die and people suffer permanently incapacitating injuries. Don’t let the automakers get away with selling you a defective product, hiding the defect, and neglecting your safety.
Contact the Houston GM ignition switch recall lawyers at Denena Points, PC for help. We care. We drive the same cars you do, on the same roads you do, and we’re deeply concerned anytime we learn that an automaker has been playing fast and loose with our safety. The law gives you rights and recourse when you’ve been injured or have lost a loved one to a defective product.
Our experienced attorneys could help you understand your legal options and eligibility for financial recovery after your needless injury or loss. Contact us for a free, no obligation initial legal consultation. Reach us by phone at 713-807-9500 or anytime through our online contact form at: http://denenapoints.com/contact.cfm and put our more than 12 years of experience to work for your benefit.
GM has recalled about 780,000 small cars because of the defect: Chevy Cobalts from the 2005 through 2007 model years and Pontiac G5s from 2007. The problem is a defective ignition switch in the GM cars that can shut off the engine without warning and lead to crashes. The faulty ignition switch can be jarred out of the run position by rough roads or even a heavy key ring. And our Houston auto defect attorneys caution that when the switch moves out of position, the car will lose both engine and electrical power.
Loss of electrical power means that air bags might not deploy if you crash, and you’ll lose your power-assisted brakes and steering, making a crash more likely. Apparently, GM knew of the problem as early as last May when it received reports of wrecks in which the air bags didn’t inflate. And drivers have posted reports of their cars suddenly turning off while in heavy traffic, and of narrowly averted crashes.
Our Houston auto defect attorneys note that the 6 deaths from the defect occurred in 5 frontal impact crashes at high speeds. GM says the reason for the delay between noticing the problem and issuing the recall was that the company had difficulty pinpointing the source of the problem. (Tom Krishner, Associated Press, 2/13/14)
GM says it will replace the faulty ignition switches free of charge, but until the switches are fixed, the company is urging drivers to take all non-essential items off their key rings. (Fine; but what can drivers do about rough roads?)
It seems odd that many of these cars, and the problems they contained, have been around for 9 years, yet supposedly reports only started coming in last May. Sadly, at least 22 cars wrecked and 6 people died while GM was trying to determine what exactly the flaw was in the Chevy Cobalts and Pontiac G5s.
But our Houston auto defect attorneys point out that sometimes automakers do know what the problem is, and they still refuse to admit there’s a defect in the vehicle. And multiple people crash and die before the company finally agrees to issue a recall. Such was apparently the case with the Ford Explorer rollovers related to inappropriate Firestone tires installed on the SUVs. About 250 deaths and 3,000 serious injuries were attributed to the defect.
When you’ve been injured or you’ve lost a loved one because of a defect in your vehicle, or because an automaker was slow to admit to a flaw in your car, you deserve a full financial recovery for your needless injuries and losses. Contact the Houston auto defect attorneys at Denena Points, PC and let us help you learn how your might hold the automaker financially liable for your suffering after a wreck caused by a vehicle defect.
Reach us for a free and confidential initial legal consultation at 713-807-9500 or just fill out our online contact form. You have no obligation to hire an attorney, and what you learn in your free consultation about your legal options and potential eligibility for fair compensation could put you and your family on the road to financial recovery after a serious accident injury.