Ford Pinto car case

The Ford Pinto, one of the most popular cars of the 1970s, had a lethal defect. Dozens of people were killed in crashes because of a faulty design that left the gas tank unprotected and vulnerable to explosion. Government an Ford didn’t protect consumers. Internal company documents showed that Ford knew it could fix the problem with $11 per car. But executives calculated that it would be more profitable to leave the vehicle unchanged and pay victims.

It took a civil lawsuit along with litigation on gas tank hazards in other cars to bring about requirements for improved gas tank safety and cause manufacturers to redesign the placement of gas tanks. Nearly 300 people were killed in crashes caused by tread separation of tires.

Trial lawyers also used the civil courts to help expose the problems with cars manufactured by Toyota, General Motors and other manufacturers that caused hundreds of deaths and injuries as vehicles suddenly sped out of control.

Even air bags were equipped on only 2% of new vehicles in 1988. But after more than a hundred lawsuits alleged manufacturers knew that thousands of deaths each year were because of the absence of air bags, and manufacturers began losing in court or paying settlements.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAI5T8UecEY

McDonald's coffe case

McDonald's coffee case, was a 1994 product liability case that became very popular in the United States. Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old woman suffered third degree burns in her groin when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after buying it from a McDonald's restaurant. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded. The jury damages included $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damage and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE

Francisco Garcia's case

Aside from medical malpractice in this post I will talk about a case of civil liability of products in this case a ball that exploded:

The Sacramento Kings and NBA player Francisco Garcia have settled their product liability lawsuit against exercise ball manufacturer Ledraplastic.

Three years ago, Garcia was balancing on an exercise ball and lifting weights at the same time. Garcia claims he had 90-pound weights in each hand when the ball suddenly burst. As a result, Garcia says that he fell to the ground and suffered serious injuries including a fractured forearm. At the time, Garcia had just signed a five year contract that would pay him almost $30 million. He had to miss a good portion of the initial season of the contract and suffered lingering injuries. 

Garcia sued for a breach of the manufacturer’s warranty. They claimed that the Ledraplastic marketed the ball as being able to withstand 600 pounds and being “burst resistant.” They claimed that Garcia burst the ball while carrying only 180 pounds of weights. During testing, Garcia’s lawyer was reportedly able to recreate the ball bursting with 400 pounds on it. 

Generally, a manufacturer of a product will be liable for any injuries if the product is not made as advertised. If someone is injured because of the defective product, the manufacturer has to pay. Garcia had also sought damages for pain and suffering as well as loss in future earning capacity. In addition, Ledraplastic is also required to include a warning to all purchasers of the ball not to use it while lifting free weights.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2012/11/nba-star-francisco-garcia-settles-exercise-ball-lawsuit.html

Medical negligence cases

In the last post of my blog I talked about medical malpractice and now I found two similar cases that occurred a few months ago. They are related to medical malpractice in which they applied Article 1101 of the Civil Code mention in the other post. 

The Madrid Health Service (SERMAS) was sentenced to pay 276.976 euros to two patients by delays in the diagnosis of breast cancer and bone tumor.

SERMAS issued a resolution that recognize their responsibility and agrees to compensate Maria with 205.600 euros provided by the poor health care: the patient was delayed for 16 months in a public hospital in the diagnosis of a bone tumor.

Maria went to the Prince of Asturias Hospital for a TAC in january 2012 in which an injury was observed “on the plaque that was unnoticed unjustifiably“ according to the Patient Advocate. The desease was diagnosed in february 2013, when Maria attended the Clinical Hospital San Carlos. Alvaro Sardinero, Patient Advocate, believes there have been increasing in these incidents in recent years. “Many negligence cases occur due to lack of time and the results would be different if they had more time to see well the TAC test“.

The High Court of justice of Madrid also condemned SERMAS with 71.376 euros to compensate a patient for the delay in breast cancer detect. The patient, Conchi, made in 2009 an ultrasound and a mammography. Doctors said that everything was normal, but a year later she was diagnosed a malignant tumor. The court recognized in the judgment that the delay in diagnosis aggravated the tumor. 

The say that “This time that they take away from the patients can end with their lives“.

http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2015/11/04/madrid/1446665895_490483.html