Cases of Note
Founding partner Henry "Hank" N. Didier, Jr. earned his reputation as an accomplished product safety attorney through diligent work on behalf of injured consumers. With hard work and commitment, Mr. Didier has successfully prosecuted a myriad of product liability claims involving various defect theories. Below are some examples of cases of note.
AIRBAG DEFECTS
Estate of Amorriz Mikel Williams-Galva v DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Unreasonably Dangerous Front Airbag
Government safety guidelines state children should ride in the back seat until age 12, but sometimes circumstances arise where older children are placed in the front where airbags are in use. On February 13, 2007, Amorriz Mikel Williams-Galva, an eight-year-old minor, was the right front passenger in a 1996 Dodge Intrepid driven by his grandmother, when their vehicle collided with another vehicle. The front airbag deployed, causing fatal injuries to the child. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
Nathan and Kristy Foll v General Motors
Lack of Side Impact Airbags for Second Row Occupants
Minivans are marketed to be family-friendly vehicles, however unless they are equipped with side airbags designed to protect children in the back seats, they may not be the safest option. On April 6, 2006, nine-year-old Kaylee Foll was a restrained passenger in her grandmother’s 2003 Chevrolet Venture, when the vehicle was struck by a dump truck on the left side in the area of the middle row passenger’s seat where Kaylee was seated. As a result of the impact, Kaylee sustained a catastrophic head injury resulting in severe deficits and physical limitations.
The Didier Law Firm filed suit on behalf of the Foll family alleging that the 2003 Chevrolet Venture was unreasonably dangerous and defective for failing to incorporate technologically and economically feasible rear side airbags that could have prevented her head injury. The Plaintiffs also alleged that such airbags could have been installed at the time of the vehicle’s manufacture, and should have been included as a standard safety feature. The case settled for a confidential amount.
The Estate of Mayling Semidey v Ford Motor Company
Unreasonably Dangerous Design of Front Airbag
While airbags are recognized for saving lives, if improperly designed they can have devastating consequences. On November 12, 2003, a jury found Ford Motor Company liable for the March 11, 2000 death of Mayling Semidey.
As trial counsel for the Estate, Mr. Didier presented evidence that Ms. Semidey was killed when her airbag in her 1996 Ford Taurus deployed in a low-speed accident where it was not needed. The jury was also presented with evidence that the airbag was unreasonably dangerous as designed due to its potential to cause injuries and death in low-speed accidents where consumers would otherwise be uninjured.
After a short deliberation, the jury awarded the Estate $3.3 million dollars.
CONSUMER PRODUCT DEFECTS
James Hemphill v Helmtec Inc.
Defectively Designed Motorcycle Helmet
Despite representations to the contrary, not all consumer products designed to protect consumers from injury perform as intended when needed. On April 22, 1997, James Hemphill was involved in a motorcycle accident after he was cut-off by another vehicle. Mr. Hemphill was thrown from his motorcycle, hit the side of another car and then came to rest on the ground.
While he was wearing his helmet it was alleged that it failed to protect him as intended and that he sustained a severe brain injury as a result. The case settled for a confidential amount.
Sanchez v Polaris
Unreasonably Dangerous Jet Ski design
Watersports and Florida go hand in hand. But, dangers can lurk, especially on the water. On August 18th, 2004, Angelina Sanchez was a rear-most seated passenger on a 1998 Polaris Personal Watercraft when she fell off the back into forcible jet thrusts used to propel the watercraft. As a result, Miss Sanchez sustained severe orifice injuries.
As counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Didier alleged that the jet ski was unreasonably dangerous in its design because of the risk to rear-seated passengers who can fall into the jet propulsion. Further, the company failed to take adequate steps in designing the seat to prevent children from falling off the back.
The case was settled for a confidential amount.
FUEL SYSTEM DEFECTS
Estate of Mitchell Bartlett et al. v General Motors Corp.
Post Collision Fuel Fed Fire
Surviving a serious accident is sometimes credited as a miracle, but then to perish post-collision due to vehicle defect is all the more tragic. On September 17, 2005, Mitchell Bartlett was driving a 1996 Cadillac Seville along with two passengers when he lost control and left the roadway, rolled over, and came to final rest up against a tree which crushed the roof into the occupant compartment. Despite the damage, however, the three occupants survived the initial crash. Thereafter, a fire originating near the vehicle’s fuel storage and fuel delivery system engulfed the vehicle and its occupants in flames, leading to their deaths.
The Didier Law Firm filed suit alleging that the fuel delivery system was defective, creating a foreseeable risk that post-accident fires could occur and that the system lacked necessary safety features, like valves designed to close to prevent the release of fuel. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
Estate of Monica Quintanilla v General Motors
Post Collision Fuel Fed Fire
By its very nature, the occurrence of fire can significantly increase the risk of injury in motor vehicle crashes, especially when occupants are trapped post-accident. On September 1, 2003, Monica Quintanilla was driving a 2001 Chevrolet Astro Van when a vehicle crossed the center line into oncoming traffic and collided with the vehicle she was operating. Ms. Quintanilla suffered non-life threatening injuries in the collision; however, her foot was entrapped near the floor. Thereafter, her vehicle became engulfed in flames causing her death.
The Didier Law Firm filed suit on behalf of her children alleging that the lack of an adequate crush zone and failure to properly manage or prevent the vehicle’s flammable fluids from being released in foreseeable crashes resulted in the post-accident fuel-fed fire that killed Ms. Quintanilla. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
HEAVY EQUIPMENT DEFECTS
The Estate of Doroteo Ortiz et. al. v John Deere Company
Defective Design
Every year hundreds of people are injured or killed in construction site accidents. On February 17, 2000, Mr. Doroteo Ortiz and Mr. Jose Rivas were fatally injured when a John Deere 310E Backhoe Loader crushed them after it unexpectedly lunged forward into the area they were working. Mr. Didier pursued claims against John Deere alleging that the installation of simple design alternatives to prevent unintended movement could have averted the tragedy. The case settled for a confidential amount.
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT DEFECTS
Steve Holliman v Southern Agcom, Inc.
Workplace Hazards / Negligent Repair
Even with safeguards in place, workplaces can present unique challenges with regard to employee safety. On February 14, 2003, a jury found Southern Agcom, Inc. responsible for the injuries and damages of Steve Holliman who was catastrophically injured on November 7, 1996 after a workplace accident caused the near amputation of his right leg. On that day, the jury found that Southern Agcom, Inc. had improperly removed a safety grate for repairs, leaving the moving components of a large grain auger exposed. As a result of Southern Agcom, Inc.’s failure to warn of the dangers posed by the open equipment and to implement recognized protective safety measures Mr. Holliman was permitted to fall into the open grain auger and was injured.
The jury awarded a $1.8 million to Mr. Holliman and his wife.
OCCUPANT EJECTIONS
Shirley Sullivan v General Motors Corporation
Seatback and Rear Liftgate Design Defects
Occupant containment in accidents is critical to ensure safety. On March 25, 2002, Shirley Sullivan was a belted second-row occupant in her 2002 Buick Rendezvous. Her vehicle was struck in the side by another car and as a result it was alleged that her seat back failed rearward and that the rear hatch opened.
Ms. Sullivan was ejected and sustained severe internal injuries. The case settled for a confidential amount.
Glenn W. Brummer v DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Seatback Failure and Lack of Window Glazing
When an occupant is ejected from a vehicle during a crash, they are three times more likely to suffer from catastrophic or fatal injuries. On March 25, 2006, Glenn Brummer sustained a catastrophic brain and physical injuries when he lost control of a 2003 PT Cruiser and was ejected out the rear window after it shattered when the car spun and struck a guard rail.
The Didier Law Firm sued the vehicle manufacturer alleging that the vehicle’s front seat failed inboard and that the use of tempered glass in the rear hatch then allowed Mr. Brummer to be ejected outside of the vehicle. The Plaintiffs alleged the choice to utilize tempered glass versus laminated window shield glass rendered the vehicle defective. The case settled for a confidential amount.
ROOF CRUSH
Sandra Sigourney v Honda Motor Company, LTD., Isuzu Motors Limited et. al.
Defectively Designed Roof Structure and Restraint System
With SUVs dominating American highways, a rise in rollover accidents has been seen. Often, the roof structures of these vehicles are incapable of withstanding the forces of these accidents and consumers can be injured. On April 28, 2002, Sandra Sigourney was involved in a rollover accident after her 1996 Honda Passport left the roadway.
As a result of the accident Mrs. Sigourney sustained a neck injury rendering her a quadriplegic. Suit was filed, and it was alleged that alternative design options existed to strengthen the roof and to otherwise protect consumers like Mrs. Sigourney from significant injury in rollover accidents. The case settled for a confidential amount.
SEATBACK FAILURES
Bruce Melsha v General Motors Corporation
Seatback and Headrest Failure
On or about November 6, 2004, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Melsha were traveling in their 2000 Chevrolet Malibu when they were struck from behind by another vehicle. While Mr. Melsha was wearing his seat belt at the time of the crash, as a result of the impact, his seat back failed rearward and his headrest broke allowing his back to flex rearward over the top of the seat rendering him a paraplegic.
The Didier Law Firm alleged that the seat back and headrest must be designed to work together as a system to prevent occupants from being injured in moderate crashes, and that the failure of the seat and breakage of the headrest was a result of a defective design. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
Edward J. Luke, II v General Motors Corporation
Seatback Failure and Defective Rear Hatch Window
In rear-end accidents it is critical that the seat perform as intended and keep the occupant in position. If the seatback fails, the occupant can move backwards and be severely injured.
On February 1, 2004, E.J. Luke was rear-ended while waiting to turn left at a light. As a result of the impact it was alleged that his seatback failed backward and allowed him to be ejected out the rear hatch of his 1995 Chevy Camaro. Mr. Luke was rendered a paraplegic. The case settled for a confidential amount.
SEATBELT FAILURES
Patricia Johnson v General Motors Corporation
Driver’s Seat Belt/Retractor Failure
Current statistics show more than 80% of drivers use their seat belt, preventing countless injuries and fatalities on a daily basis. However, even these life-saving devices sometimes fail to perform. On or about July 10, 2004, Patricia Johnson, was traveling on a Kansas highway in her 2004 Chevrolet Venture when it veered off the roadway to the left. Upon returning to the roadway it began to roll, during which, the occupant restraint system Mrs. Johnson was utilizing failed to keep her properly restrained, and, as a result, she was completely ejected from the vehicle and sustained fatal injuries.
The Didier Law Firm filed suit on behalf of Mrs. Johnson’s estate alleging that the seat belt system’s retractor failed to lock allowing the seat belt to spool out during the roll sequence resulting in Mrs. Johnson being ejected. The case settled for a confidential amount.
TIRE FAILURES
Estate of Scott Bowden v Michelin North America, Rahal Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. et.al.
Tire Failure/ Negligent Inspection and Repair
With every passing year consumers are becoming more aware of the hazards associated with tire failures. On July 5, 2001, Scott Bowden was killed when his vehicle rolled over after the left-rear tire on his 1999 Chevrolet Tahoe failed.
Mr. Didier pursued claims not only against the tire manufacturer for alleged defects in the tire, but pursued the dealership who last inspected it before the failure for their alleged negligence. The case settled with both parties for confidential amounts.
TRAILER SWAY
Dorothy Barnett v Sunnybrook, et al
Defective Trailer – Trailer Sway Device and Tow Vehicle
The dangers associated with towing trailers are generally not fully appreciated by consumers. Also, adequate information about the appropriate steps to take to control a trailer once it begins to sway is not provided. As a result, each year numerous needless deaths and injuries occur.
On November 24, 2002, Dr. John Barnett was killed after his 31 foot long Sunnybrook Travel Trailer began to sway after being passed by a tractor trailer.
It was alleged that insufficient information was provided to the Barnett family about trailer sway, and that they were not told the appropriate responses to sway to prevent a loss of control situation. It was also alleged that the vehicle-trailer-hitch combination was defective in that it did not prevent or minimize the potential for trailer sway in the first place. The case settled for a confidential amount.
TREAD SEPARATIONS
Howeedy v Bridgestone/Firestone, et al
On March 21, 2004, the Howeedy family was traveling in their 1995 Ford Windstar on the Florida Turnpike when the vehicle’s right rear tire tread separated, causing them to lose control and crash. Wife and mother Amani Abou-El-Eila was severely injured and rendered a paraplegic, eight-year-old Ranya Howeedy sustained severe injuries, and 14-year-old Lila and four-year-old Kareem died in the accident.
Mr. Didier filed suit alleging that the Bridgestone tire failed to incorporate critical components such as nylon overlays or nylon edge layers to reduce or eliminate belt edge separation or tread belt separation.
The case was settled for a confidential amount.
Viel v Kumho Tires, et al
On August 21, 1999, Palmer LaSala was driving his 1994 Toyota Tercel with passengers Donna and Joseph Viel. The car lost control and crossed the median into oncoming traffic after the left rear tread separated from the tire, resulting in a horrific accident. Palmer LaSala and Donna Viel were killed, and Joseph Viel suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the crash.
Suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs alleging the tire catastrophically failed as a result of tread belt separation. The tread belt separation resulted from defective design and manufacture.
The case was settled for a confidential amount.
VEHICLE STABILITY
The Estate of Carolina Caltabiano v Suzuki
Directionally Unstable Vehicle Design
The stability of vehicles, particularly sport utility vehicles, is a function of numerous factors. Decisions made in the design process can have significant effects on the ability of drivers to control their vehicles during foreseeable accident avoidance situations.
On July 19, 2000, Carolina Caltabiano was ejected and killed when the driver of the vehicle she was a passenger in lost control after to trying re-gain control after briefly leaving the road. Ultimately, the driver was unable to keep control of her 1992 Suzuki Sidekick, and it rolled over. It was alleged that the design of the vehicle made it unstable and prone to roll over in these types of situations. The case settled for a confidential amount.
