You are here: Home / Archives for civil lawsuits

Toxic Chinese Drywall Problem More Extensive than Initially Reported

May 7, 2012 By

In the first decade of this century, the construction industry across Tennessee, North Carolina and the rest of the U.S. boomed. It was also during this time that millions of tons of sheetrock were imported from China.

According to the Chinese Drywall Complaint Center, it’s estimated over 500 million pounds of drywall (…or sheetrock) containing a variety of toxins were imported. Ordinarily, drywall for domestic construction is manufactured entirely in the U.S.  In response to increased demand though, the import of Chinese drywall began around 2001 and accelerated rapidly following the disastrous hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 (…especially Hurricane Katrina).

By all available evidence, import of Chinese drywall ended in 2007 when the housing boom started to cool.

The damage was done though, especially in homes in the Deep South. Figures show Florida was the hardest hit state but the toxic drywall is considered to be a national problem. Any area with high heat and humidity – which we see plenty of here – can cause the toxic drywall to become a real nuisance, even real danger.

It’s also been reported that homes in Canada may have toxic drywall imported from China as well.

Toxic drywall can be quite noticeable if conditions are right. Laboratory samples have identified emissions of carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide and hydrogen sulfide – each are substances that pose tremendous hazards to human health.

These emissions smell like rotten eggs, which is certainly noticeable, and unpleasant.

Homeowners with toxic drywall have reported a variety of health problems, including asthma attacks, chronic coughing, difficulty breathing, chronic headaches and sinus issues.

Corroded A/C Coils

In the home itself, the toxic drywall causes all sorts of issues, many of which are found in copper wiring and components found in electrical wiring, A/C systems and even electronic devices like TVs and radios. Reactions with hydrogen sulfide cause copper components to turn black and powdery.

It’s even been reported that silver jewelry can be ruined by this reaction.

Absent of these reactions, the only way to find out if you have toxic drywall is to tear sections off and look on the other side of the drywall. It’s estimated that toxic drywall from 20 companies was imported into the U.S. between 2001 and 2008. Many of these companies, like Knauff-Tianjin, are currently facing several lawsuits.

If you discover your home has toxic Chinese drywall, it can cost thousands to repair. While some homeowners in Florida and elsewhere have received compensation, the process in quite chaotic, especially considering the lack of federal involvement in the issue.

If you’re looking to purchase a home built between 2001 and 2008, be sure you get a thorough inspection to insure the home doesn’t have toxic Chinese drywall. This is especially important if the home is a foreclosure.

And if you’re experiencing problems in your home and believe it’s due to toxic drywall, click on over to the Chinese Drywall Complaint Center for more information. There you can find sample letters to provide your lender and more about what to look for in your home.

While Tennessee and North Carolina hasn’t experienced the brunt of this problem, there are still many homes in our region that have this toxic substance. If you’ve been adversely affected, contact Tennessee product liability attorneys at Gilreath & Associates to discuss your options today.

Filed Under: Product Failures, Safety Tagged With: , , , ,

Be Sure to Transfer your Title When Selling or Gifting a Car or Motorcycle

April 27, 2012 By

When you sell or otherwise transfer ownership of a car or motorcycle, you have to be sure you transfer the title. Neglecting to do so could have devastating consequences for you should an accident or some other event occur.

Let’s say you sell your used car to a friend of a friend. However, you forget or otherwise do not transfer the title to their name.

After they’ve taken possession, the person now driving your old car commits a crime, gets into an accident or racks up a whole bunch of parking tickets. You may be thinking “…well, that’s their problem.”

It would be if you transferred legal ownership of the property to them in a timely manner.

But if you didn’t transfer ownership before any incidents occurred, you could end up being held liable for their malfeasance.

Here at the Gilreath Law Firm, we hear stories all the time of people who didn’t transfer the title to a car or motorcycle that they sold or gifted to someone.

In the end, it cost the former owner thousands of dollars and countless hours to deal with the problem.

In Tennessee, you are required to transfer a title as soon as possible after gifting or selling a car or motorcycle. A title is essentially a legal document that shows vehicle ownership.

To complete a title transfer, you must do the following:

  1. Complete and sign the title as the “seller”
  2. Be sure the buyer completes and signs the title as the “buyer”
  3. In Tennessee, complete and sign an odometer disclosure statement with the buyer
  4. Provide the buyer with any applicable emissions testing information
  5. Take your license plate off the vehicle
  6. Give the buyer a copy of the title and the odometer disclosure statement. They will need to take these documents to their County Clerk’s office to register the vehicle in their name

Although a Bill of Sale isn’t required in Tennessee, it’s good to have one anyway to prove you transferred ownership of the vehicle in case the buyer doesn’t fulfill their obligations to register the vehicle in their name.

Again, simply giving someone the keys and letting them drive off in the sunset could wind up causing you some major problems.

Be sure to cover yourself from any potential liability by properly transferring ownership of your vehicle. Even though the process seems cumbersome, it is worth doing to ensure you’re not troubled by someone else’s mistakes.  Check out this page for complete information on transferring ownership of a car or motorcycle in Tennessee.

Neglecting this important task could end up costing you dearly. Cover your bases by properly transferring legal title to the car or motorcycle’s new owner.

 

Filed Under: Injury, Trucking Accidents Tagged With: ,

Video Footage – Proving your Injury Claim

April 19, 2012 By

In any personal injury, slip and fall or car accident case, you have to prove liability on the part of the defendant to obtain damages. Our firm uses many means to help you prove this all important liability – statutes, prior case law and of course, actual evidence obtained through investigation.

Video footage, especially from surveillance cameras, is one type of evidence that can make proving your case much easier.

Let’s take a look at this example of a holiday season shopper who suffered painful injuries at the mall. Having footage from the mall’s security cameras was instrumental in proving her case.

Julie was shopping at a mall for gifts for her family but her trip suddenly turned into a tumultuous affair.

While coming down an escalator, Julie slipped and fell at the end. She used her right hand to brace from the impact of the fall. She felt pain in her right hand and was unable to get up for a moment. Other shoppers certainly noticed the incident and notified mall security.

Although a report was filed, Julie declined medical attention and decided to go home.

Later in the night though, Julie started experiencing excruciating pain so her husband took her to the emergency room. After a few x-rays, doctors were able to determine that Julie had sustained some pretty serious injuries, specifically a broken arm, wrist and broken pelvis. Surgery was ordered and while it was successful, Julie required 5 months of physical therapy.

What caused Julie to fall and sustain these injuries?

It was later determined that some spilled soda at the base of the escalator was to blame for the incident.

According to surveillance footage of the area, the hazard was present a whole 2 hours before the incident. The footage also showed that mall employees had taken NO action clean up the spill or warns customers of any hazards

In this respect, the owners and managers of the mall failed in their duty to inspect their premises, warn shoppers of any danger and take measures to address the hazard. In light of this failure, the owners and managers of the mall are liable for Julie’s medical bills.

Upon this discovery, the mall’s management company offered Julie $5000 in damages (…through an insurance policy for such circumstances).

However, Julie’s medical expenses – the surgery and physical therapy – totaled $35,000.

As you can see, $5000 can hardly make a dent on that.

Julie then took the next step and hired a premises liability attorney to try and obtain compensation for all of her expenses. At first, $140k was requested but a counter-offer of $35k was sent back by the management company. Next, Julie’s attorney countered with a settlement offer of $125k.

With a trial seeming inevitable, the judge presiding over the case ordered the two parties to make one final effort at negotiation.

After 6 hours of discussion, the two parties settled on compensation of $75,000 – $50k was to be paid by the management company while the remaining $25k was to be paid by the mall’s owners.

During settlement negotiations, you can request any video surveillance footage to prove your case. If the owner’s refuse to turn over the footage, you will have to file a lawsuit to obtain the footage.

As you can see from Julie’s case, having video footage made proving her case much easier. Her premises liability attorney was able to use this too in the case’s settlement negotiations. And as we also see from this case, there can be two parties liable in a case. In our example here, it was the mall owners as well as the management company they hired.

Despite overwhelming evidence, defendants like this too often delay making a sufficient offer in hopes you don’t have the resources to pursue a full claim, which is why hiring a premises liability or personal injury attorney is vitally important.

Premises liability attorneys at Nashville’s Gilreath & Associates possess decades of experience obtaining compensation for injury victims like Julie. If you’ve sustained an injury due to someone else’s negligence, it’s vitally important you obtain legal representation to make sure you’re sufficiently compensated for medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering.

Filed Under: Injury, Safety Tagged With: , , ,

Avoiding “Structured Settlement” Scams

April 6, 2012 By

Often times, the effects from an accident go well beyond the pain and medical procedures. Often times, the financial aspect of your injury is every bit, if not more stressful.

This “financial” stress can eventually lead to depression and desperation and prompt you to make ill-advised decisions in the hopes of fixing your money situation.

One of these ill-advised moves is to work with a structured settlement company that offers immediate, lump-sum payouts. In exchange, you agree to sell the company your future payments from any settlements.

The problem of course is this comes at a pretty steep price. Typically, structured settlement companies will only offer a fraction of the money you would otherwise receive from your eventual settlement.

If you’re considering a structured settlement for whatever reason, consult with your personal injury attorney and any structured settlement professionals they’ve worked with. Or, you can speak to a trusted financial adviser on how best to sell future payments.

Here are a few things you need to consider:

  • Don’t take selling your future payouts lightly
  • Explore all other options before deciding to sell your future payouts
  • If selling is the only option or even the right option, only work with reputable companies who use a fair and transparent process

Even with laws and statutes in place, many structured settlement companies are able to push through unsavory deals. For example, many states require judicial approval for all structured settlement transactions. The court is charged with ensuring the discount rate and any fees and expenses are fair and in the best interest of the payee (..you) and his/her dependents.

So while there are some protections built in, sound advice is still key.

Structured settlement companies that help accident victims with immediate cash needs are certainly valuable, provided they follow all laws and make sure their customers are given the information they need to make an informed decision.

However, bad apples do exist so only seek out the most reputable structured settlement firms to work with.

Original story appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Safety Report

Filed Under: Advocacy, Injury Tagged With: , , , , ,

Shortcuts by Aircraft Parts Maker Leads to Crash, Fatalities

March 22, 2012 By

One crisp, clear morning, both Susan Delacroix and Kimberly Dear boarded a small plane with six experienced skydivers. They were new to an exciting sport they wanted to experience for themselves.

Little did they know, the plane they were boarding would prove to be much more dangerous than the skydiving itself.

Shortly after taking off, one of the engines on the small plane caught fire. With a disabled engine, the plane struggled to gain altitude and floated over the treetops before crashing. All told, five occupants lost their lives, including Delacroix. Dear was the only passenger in the plane to escape any serious injury.

Following each plane crash, an investigation is done to determine its cause.

In the months following the tragic incident, it was determined the engine fire was caused by a compressor turbine blade manufactured by Doncasters, Inc.

The engine manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney Canada, had exact requirements on which type of metal should be used. Doncasters though used a less expensive metal alloy – one that couldn’t handle the heat, force and speed of the engine.

Parents of most of the deceased joined forces and hired attorneys Gary C. Robb and Anita Robb of Kansas City, MO. Family members of a couple of the other deceased filed a separate suit in federal court. The other two passengers (…besides Dear) who survived with paralyzing injuries sued separately but settled prior to any trial.

The turbine blade in questions “was only in the engine less than 2,400 flight hours, which is less than half the time before it was scheduled for its first maintenance check,” according to Robb.

But during the investigation/discovery phase of the case, the plaintiffs learned more about the company’s actions and determined them to be more egregious than first thought.

For example, out of 5,000 employees on staff at Doncasters, not one of them was an actual engineer.

And although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had approved the turbine blade based on test results provided by Doncasters, it was later determined that the company didn’t report that the blade had previously failed internal performance tests.

Through their investigation, attorneys for the deceased also learned that turbine blades from the company had caused at least 8 previous engine failures.

In order to present an airtight case, attorneys for the plaintiffs called in multiple experts to testify. Engineers, metallurgists, an FAA representative and even an engineer from Pratt & Whitney, the engine manufacturer testified. The representative from Pratt & Whitney testified that they would have never knowingly used a blade made of that particular alloy “…because it could not withstand the engine’s operation.”

Another expert testified about pre-impact terror and described the fear passengers likely experienced when they realized the plane was going to crash.

Despite all of this testimony, the most significant part came when a Doncasters corporate representative testified. Robb says that the company’s defense though may have been the convincing factor for the jury. The company didn’t call any engineers or witnesses to testify that the turbine was safe or had been designed safely.

After a three-week trial, $48 million was awarded – $4 million to each family in compensatory damages and $28 million in punitive damages.

After the verdict was read, several jurors expressed anger toward the parts maker.

“They understood that the company cared far more about profit than it did about safety,” comments Robb.

Although he expects the company to appeal, Robb says the verdict will serve as a powerful warning to other companies.

“Aircraft parts manufacturers will learn that they can’t cut corners on safety, because if they do, they will be caught,” comments Robb.

Aviation accidents can be quite scary and deadly, even in a small plane like the one used in the skydiving excursion. Pilot error, mechanical failure/defects are just a couple of ways accidents can occur. If you’ve lost a loved one or were seriously injured in a plane crash, aviation accident attorneys at Knoxville’s Gilreath & Associates possess years of experience representing families affected by a tragedy like this.

To learn more, visit us online or call our offices at (800) 637-7024 today.

Original story appeared in the August, 2011 issue of Trial magazine

Filed Under: Safety Tagged With: , ,

Mother, Father Allege Inadequate Fetal Monitoring Led to Birth Defects

February 7, 2012 By

Becoming a parent is one of the most special things you can experience in your life. Unfortunately though, not all newborns come out 100% healthy. If any birth defects come about due to potential medical malpractice or negligence, it can be doubly devastating.

This was the unfortunate case for Michelle Holweger, who was admitted to a naval hospital during the 35th week of her pregnancy because of significant cramping. About an hour after she was admitted, the expectant mother was attached to a fetal monitor where it was discovered her baby’s heart rate was almost non-existent.

So about 2 ½ hours after her admission, Michelle underwent an emergency cesarean section where it was discovered she had experienced a placental abruption. Once her daughter was born, she required intensive care due to respiratory distress. Her Apgar scores were dangerously low – one at one minute and two at five minutes.

Michelle’s daughter, now 5, has been diagnosed with having developmental delays and cerebral palsy.

Individually and on their daughter’s behalf, the Holwegers sued the United States government alleging that the mother was not properly triaged and attached to a fetal monitor quick enough. Their suit also alleged the hospital staff did not properly interpret the fetal monitoring strips and that they failed to perform the cesarean section in a timely manner.

Because of these delays, the parents (plaintiffs) claim their daughter suffered hypoxi-ischemic encephalopathy.

Defendants in this case claim that Holweger didn’t exhibit signs of placental abruption and that the cesarean delivery had been done in a timely manner.

The two parties settled the case for about $2.3 million.

Medical malpractice involving newborns can be particularly troubling, especially considering that many birth defects can have lifelong impacts. If you think negligence played a part in any of this, you should consider any legal options to help you cope with ongoing medical expenses for your child.

Medical malpractice attorneys at the Gilreath Law Firm in Nashville/Knoxville can help you determine if you have a case. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Original story appeared in the August, 2011 issue of Trial magazine

Filed Under: Medical Malpractice Tagged With: , , ,

Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Injured Families in Selmer Dragster Case

September 27, 2011 By

In a unanimous opinion released today (Sept. 27, 2011), the Western Section Court of Appeals of Tennessee ruled in Ginny Beth King et al v. Flowmaster, Inc.  that a trial court should not have dismissed Flowmaster from the case based on additional jury questions yet to be decided.  The trial court had dismissed Flowmaster on the theory that they had no legal duty to protect spectators at the 2007 Cars for Kids event held in Selmer, Tennessee.

The event was to feature exhibition burnouts by professional drag race drivers including Troy Critchley, whose 3000 horse power car veered into the crowd, killing six and injuring more than twenty others.  The Court of Appeals ruled that there were in fact questions for a jury to decide on, including three theories: negligence; ultra-hazardous liability; and the legal definition of drag racing.

Negligence

As to the negligence theory, the Court of Appeals ruled that Flowmaster did have a legal duty of care to spectators, contrary to the ruling of the trial court.  The evidence before the Court demonstrated that while Flowmaster was not the event organizer, Flowmaster was a title sponsor of the event and had taken steps to invite professional drag race drivers to Selmer.  The Court noted that under Tennessee law, the plaintiff must show that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable probability, not just a remote possibility, and that some action within the defendant’s power more probably than not would have prevented the injury (…quoting Tedder v. Raskin, 728 S.W.2d 343, 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).  The Court reasoned that the law does not require Flowmaster to be an equal participant in an event, so long as they meet other factors establishing a legal duty to others.

In this case, the Court of Appeals found that Flowmaster had not negated their legal duty to act on behalf of spectators, and therefore it was a mistake for the trial court to dismiss Flowmaster on those grounds.

Ultra-hazardous liability

Ultra-hazardous liability is a legal theory in Tennessee that holds that defendants engaged in ultra-hazardous activities are held strictly liable for the injuries caused (Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682, 699 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).  The negligence or care exercised by the defendant in carrying out the activity is irrelevant.  Flowmaster argued that its lack of control over the Cars for Kids event meant it could not be responsible.  However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that evidence presented demonstrated that questions of material fact existed as to whether Flowmaster requested Troy Critchley perform the burnout that killed and injured so many spectators.

As a result, the Court said it was a mistake for the trial court to dismiss Flowmaster from the case on this theory as well.

Legal Definition of Drag Racing

The Court of Appeals also made reference to Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-501(1) which defines drag racing in Tennessee.  Under the law, drag racing is broader than two cars speeding down a course.  Instead, drag racing is participation by one (1) or more motor vehicles for the purpose of outgaining another, accepting or carrying out a challenge, and use of a vehicle to determine the maximum speed within a certain distance or time limit.  Tennessee law also defines a drag race participant in equally broad terms:

“. . . and also any person or persons who arrange for, supervise, or in any way and manner set in motion any “drag racing”, regardless of whether or not such person or persons may be the operator of, or be a passenger in, any motor vehicle participating in “drag racing.”  Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-501(2).

The Court of Appeals found that sufficient evidence existed as to create a jury question for whether or not the burnout performed by Troy Critchley constituted drag racing, and also a question of whether Flowmaster’s contact with Critchley requesting he perform the burnout equates to “participation” as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-501(2).

Finding three situations where the trial court made mistakes in its ruling, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case back to McNairy County Circuit Court for further proceedings.

This ruling is significant because rarely does a Tennessee court have the opportunity to reaffirm and extend the concept of legal duty as it relates to recreational events.  Even more rare is the chance to discuss duty in the context of motor sports, and particularly aggressive motor sport activities like drag racing and exhibition burnouts, and discuss them in the context of ultra-hazardous liability.  The Court of Appeals stopped short of calling the activity in this case ultra-hazardous, instead leaving that decision for a McNairy County jury.

R. Christopher Gilreath along with founding partner Sidney Gilreath argued the case for the injured and deceased plaintiffs before the Court of Appeals.  On behalf of the eight families we represent, we are pleased that they have been given a renewed opportunity to present their story to a McNairy County jury, and that the Court recognized that companies who directly participate to create events that cause harm can be held accountable under the law.

(Full opinion available here: http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/kingginnybethopn.pdf)

Filed Under: Injury, Safety Tagged With: , ,

Lawsuits Make the World Safer

July 28, 2011 By

The continuing improvements in automotive safety provide a good example of how lawsuits save lives. Cars were once designed only for looks and speed, safety features weren’t considered in the design and selling cars without what are now considered basic safety features wasn’t thought of as negligent. Because of civil lawsuits auto manufacturers have made progressively safer automobiles. As a direct result of litigation, gas tanks are now universally located within the rigid frames of the automobile. Gas tanks are now designed and placed in positions where they are more protected in collisions. This makes gas tanks less hazardous by reducing the risk of cars exploding or catching fire in a crash.

Air bags are another area where litigation has saved lives.  Automobile manufacturers began developing air bags in the 1950’s but delayed implementing them as safety features. In the early 1970′s the courts regularly ruled with automobile manufacturers that vehicles without airbags were not defective or unreasonably dangerous. As a result of continued lawsuits, air bags are now standard features in automobiles and automobile collisions are less likely to result in serious injury or death.

Litigation has led to many changes that have made cars safer. Automobile manufacturers have redesigned vehicles to reduce the severity of injuries suffered in collisions and the likelihood of people being ejected from cars in rollover accidents. Manufacturers continue to improve seat belts and airbags to help protect not just the driver but now also passengers. Side impact is now addressed in the structural design of vehicles. Door latches have been redesigned to reduce the likelihood of doors opening in a collision. The redesign of power window switches now protects children from injury or death from accidentally triggering the window. Seat backs and car roof strength have both been improved to prevent injury in serious collisions and rollovers.

Recently, also because of litigation, a federal court in Arizona found that a vehicle may be defective or unreasonably dangerous because the side windows are made are tempered rather than laminated glass. Tempered glass shatters into hundreds of small pieces on impact where laminated glass, which is already required for front windshields, holds together when shattered. Laminated glass would help keep people from being ejected from cars in accidents. Most deaths in rollover accidents result from people who have been ejected from the vehicle after the window shatters. If laminated glass becomes standard for side windows it will be another example of lawsuits improving safety measures in automobiles and saving lives.

Civil lawsuits have resulted in safer products in many other areas. We no longer have swimming pool drains that drown children because of the suction of the drain or lead based cosmetic products that cause neurological damage. Typically lawsuits have to be filed before laws or regulations are implemented by Congress. Tractor trailer safety has come to the forefront of congressional scrutiny because of lawsuits over the extraordinary damages caused in trucking accidents. Trucking regulations are changing requiring driver to get more rest so they will be more alert when traveling the nation’s highways. Lawsuits make the world safer for everyone.

====================

Consumers have rights. No matter what product it is, manufacturers are responsible for their actions. With hundreds of potentially defective products in the marketplace, you may have been injured in an accident. If you have had an experience with a defective product in Tennessee, contact us or call toll free: 800-637-7024 for an experienced Tennessee product liability lawyer.

Filed Under: Safety Tagged With: ,