Product Liability Cases

Accomplished San Diego Product Liability Attorneys

Significant Defective Products Cases

The McClellan Law Firm has represented the victims of virtually every type of defective and dangerous product in courts across the country. While the firm has historically focused on dangerous and defective automobiles and their component parts, The McClellan Law Firm also has represented victims of dangerous and defective industrial, work-related, and home products.

Recognized as national leaders in the field of products liability litigation, the attorneys of The McClellan Law Firm frequently lecture and appear in the news regarding product-related litigation to others. See for example, Craig McClellan's news appearance regarding sudden acceleration.

Here at The McClellan Law Firm, we have assisted many victims of defective products, particularly defective automobiles and auto parts. In the last few years, The McClellan Law Firm has settled half a dozen Ford Explorer Rollover cases. Additionally, the firm has brought lawsuits against most of the automobile manufacturers in the world, including litigation against Ford, GM, Chrysler, Jeep, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Nissan, Landrover, Ferrari, Porsche, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Volvo, Mercedes, BMW, Chevrolet, Datsun, Dodge , Mazda, Pontiac.

Product Liability - Passive Restraints/Defective Airbags

• In Rodriguez v. Volvo, the plaintiff received a brain injury in a low speed collision when the pretensioner in her seat belt failed and the airbag deployed.
• In Aponte v. Mercedes Benz, Christie Aponte was wearing a lap-belt in the center rear seat of her father's Mercedes when the car was hit head-on by another vehicle in Puerto Rico. Because she was wearing a lap-belt only, Christie suffered catastrophic and paralyzing injures. The McClellan Law Firm obtained a $5.2 million settlement on her behalf.
• In Johnson v. General Motors Corporation, a grandmother was driving her 1987 Cadillac de Ville with her grandchildren, ages 8 and 9, seat belted in the back seat behind her when the vehicle was "t-boned" by a second speeding car. The forces of the collision killed one of the children instantly, and the "RCF-67" Seat Belt buckle worn by the other child to "intertially unlatch" or open. Because the Seat Belt opened, the child was thrown 10 feet high and over 30 feet through the air. She landed on the top of her head, suffering catastrophic spinal and other injuries, resulting in triplegia. GM's prior testing of the RCF-67 buckle revealed that it was subject to "inertial unlatching" yet GM continued to use the buckles in vehicles it sold. General Motors settled the case for a confidential amount.
• In Miller v. Ford Motor Company, the Miller family was out for a Sunday drive in their Ford Escort with eleven year-old twins James and Richard seat-belted in the back seat. Another vehicle crossed over into their lane and hit the Miller's Escort head on. Because the rear seats were equipped with "lap-only" Seat Belts, James died at the scene and Richard was rendered paraplegic.
  
  Although Ford wanted a confidential settlement, the Miller family refused. Ford later settled for $6 million. Following the settlement, the Miller family lobbied for legislation that required all used car dealers to place a sticker on the window of any vehicle with lap-only Seat Belts warning potential consumers of the dangers of those restraints. The bill passed and is now part of California law.

Additional product liability cases litigated by the McClellan Law Firm involving defective seatbelts or seatbelts that inertially unlatched in a collision include:

• Sisters of the Precious Blood v. Ford Motor Company
• Wilson and Schmittou v. Ford Motor Company
• Richter v. Chrysler
• Schultz v. Nissan
• Aponte v. Mercedes Benz
• Hanson and Takahara v. Hyundai
• Douglas v. Toyota
• Carter v. Chrysler
• Vonderharr v. Ford Motor Company
• Shi v. Nissan
• Duncan v. Volkswagen

Product Liability - Vehicle Stability, Rollover and Roof Crush

• Smith v. Chrysler. This case involved the rollover of the Jeep CJ-7, resulting in brain injury to the plaintiff. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
• Tradewell v. Chrysler. This case involved the rollover of the Jeep CJ-7, resulting in brain injury to the plaintiff. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
• King v. General Motors Corporation. A rollover of a Jeep Astrovan and the fracture of a seat hinge caused partial paralysis to the plaintiff. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
• Brehm v. Isuzu. A rollover and roof crush of an Isuzu Rodeo resulted in paralyzing injuries to the plaintiff. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
• Cooley v. Ford Motor Company. A Ford Taurus went off the roadway and rolled over. The plaintiff was crushed by the roof, resulting in paralysis. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
• Gilbert v. Toyota. A rollover of a Toyota SUV resulted in partial paralysis to the plaintiff. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
• Villalobos v. Toyota. A Toyota Land Cruiser rolled over after being struck by another vehicle, resulting in quadriplegia to the plaintiff. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
• Wall v. Ford Motor Company. A Ford Explorer rolled over, killing the father and seriously injuring his daughter. The case settled for a confidential amount.
• Lajeunesse v. Ford Motor Company. A Ford Explorer rolled over on the freeway and the resulting roof crush paralyzed a mother who was the front seat passenger. The case settled during trial for a confidential amount.
• Nuccio v. Chrysler. A Jeep CJ-5 started to roll on the freeway, causing the plaintiff's leg to fly out of the door opening, where it was hit by another car and traumatically amputated. The case settled for a confidential amount.
• Valentine v. Ford. The Valentine family was traveling in their 1996 Ford Explorer en route to Florida . While driving in the right hand lane of a two-lane highway, a second vehicle cut them off. The driver turned to the right to avoid a collision, entering the right-hand shoulder. The vehicle over-responded to the driver's steering input, and shot across the highway, entering the grass median, where it went into a yaw and rolled approximately seven times. During the rolls, the front, passenger door of the Explorer unlatched, and the roof collapsed, rendering 42 year-old Debra Valentine a level C5-C7 quadriplegic. The case was settled for a confidential amount.

Product Liability - Vehicle & Car Fires

• Escobedo v. General Motors. On Christmas Eve, Thomas Romero and his three daughters were driving home in their 1983 Malibu from the hospital where mom had just delivered twin girls. While stopped at a red light, a drunken lawyer plowed into the rear of the vehicle. The gas tank ruptured and the car burst into flames. The force of the collision jammed the rear two doors of the vehicle shut, trapping the two youngest daughters inside, where they burned alive. GM settled the case mid-trial for a confidential sum.

The McClellan Law Firm have handled a number of cases involving vehicles that have burst into flames following a collision. These types of cases are referred to as "post-collision fuel-fed fire cases." Some of those include:

• Balugo v. Mazda
• Rios v. General Motors Corporation
• Bugajski v. General Motors Corporation
• Escobedo v. General Motors Corporation

Product Liability - Seat or Seat Back Failures

The McClellan Law Firm has prosecuted cases in which individuals were paralyzed as a result of collapsing seat backs. Those cases include:

• Perlove v. Ford Motor Company
• King v. General Motors Corporation

Product Liability - Vehicle Speed & Power Defects

The McClellan Law Firm has litigated two cases against Porsche involving the Turbo 930, in which the combination of power, turbo-lag and oversteer made the vehicle too difficult to handle for the average driver, without proper warnings and instruction.

• The first case, Garrison v. Porsche, arose out of the death of a husband and father who was a passenger in a Turbo 930, when the driver lost control on a city street and went into oncoming traffic. The jury awarded $2.5 million, which was upheld on appeal. The 1983 award tied the verdict for the death of Audie Murphy, a war hero and actor, for the largest wrongful death verdict in the state of California. Following the Garrison verdict, Porsche started offering driver's training to the purchasers of its high-performance, turbo-charged vehicles.
• The second case, Trent v. Porsche, arose out of the death of a husband and father, when the Turbo 930 oversteered and collided with a telephone pole. The case settled for a confidential amount.

Product Liability - Transmission Defects

• In Blaney v. Honda, the plaintiff parked her car in the driveway on a slight incline. After putting the transmission in first gear, she went to retrieve the newspaper from the driveway. While she was doing so, the transmission slipped to neutral and the car ran over her, causing paralysis. The case settled for a confidential amount.

Product Liability - Tire Defects

Some cases involve vehicles that lose control or roll over because of defects in the design, manufacture or processing of the vehicle's tires.

• In Tatum v. B.F. Goodrich, the plaintiff suffered brain injury when her BMW rolled over following a blow-out of the rear tire as the result of poor adhesion between the steel cord and rubber. The case settled for a confidential amount.

Lift Kits

• In Ruiz v. Cepik, an after-market lift kit made the vehicle unstable and unsafe, resulting in the death of plaintiffs' decedent. The case settled for a confidential amount.

Truck Defects

• In Zarour v. BB Transport, the absence of underride protection on the rear of a truck resulted in the death of plaintiffs' son when his vehicle rode under the truck on the freeway. The case settled for $1,075,000.

Tractor Defects

• In Ayers v. Hister and Atomic Investors, the plaintiff was brain-injured when his tractor overturned after the engine oversped coming down a grade. The case settled for a confidential amount.

Please note that the results featured on our web site do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.