This “phantom recall” of Motrin by Johnson & Johnson began in 2009, when McNeil, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson’s hired private contractors to buy up defective Motrin from retailer shelves, rather than launching a national recall and alerting the public. The contractors were instructed to “[r]un in, find the product, make your purchases and run out.” They were told “[t]here must be no mention of this being a recall of the product.”

E-mails recently released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform show that Johnson & Johnson’s may have effected a second secret recall! A contractor hired for that job wrote to colleagues that his company was considering a “similar but potentially larger recall for July involving Children’s Tylenol” for J&J. It’s still unknown whether that happened.

Rep. Edolphus “Ed” Towns, D-NY, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said that “The facts we are uncovering in this investigation are extremely troubling. The American people still deserve answers about Johnson and Johnson’s recall of more than 130 bottles of children’s medicine and the phantom methods they have used in other cases to avoid recalls.”

Yes, I agree that these facts are incredibly troubling! How many secret recalls has Johnson & Johnson’s effected? Have other drug manufacturers engaged in these secret recalls as well? How about nondrug manufacturers? The public has a right to know if companies are putting defective products on store shelves that are dangerous to their health. The public should also know if they have bottles of medicine in their bathroom cabinets that are supposed to help, but could make them sick or worse!

These issues of product recalls for consumer products are literally ones of life or death. Can we trust companies like Johnson & Johnson’s or other companies to be above board? The evidence may be proving otherwise.

Receiving Justice for Injured Product Defect Victims

Have you been injured due to a defective product? Do you want to know your rights? Want to know what your case is worth? Want compensation? Want justice? Would you like to ensure the same thing doesn’t happen to another family?

If so, call your best friends in the legal industry. Call 800-849-4905. The call is free. The advice may be priceless.

Call a BISNAR | CHASE Newport Beach personal injury lawyer for a free professional evaluation of your rights by attorneys who have been representing victims of defective products since 1978. You will experience award winning representation and outstanding personal service by a compassionate and understanding law firm in a comfortable environment.

According to “Automotive News” the salient points of the bills are as follows:
Both the House and Senate bills would require installation of brake override systems and event data recorders, or black boxes, in new vehicles, following the sudden-acceleration problems of Toyota Motor Corp.

They also would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to consider changes in pedal placement, performance standards for electronic systems, safety standards for pushbutton ignition systems, and transmission labeling standards.
Maximum fines for safety violations would be raised from $16.4 million to $200 million in the House bill and $300 million in the Senate legislation.
NHTSA also would have the authority under both bills to order immediate recalls in the event of an “imminent hazard,” subject to administrative appeal by the automaker.

Both bills also would impose revolving-door restrictions on NHTSA officials who go to work for the auto industry and seek to lobby the federal agency. Information about safety defects would be made more transparent to consumers under both measures, although consumer advocates have complained that they don’t go far enough. Funding for NHTSA would double to $280 million in three years under both measures, though Congress would have to approve separate appropriations measures if the increases are to go through. The main point of contention between the bills is that the House measure would phase in a $9-a-vehicle fee on manufacturers to help beef up funding for NHTSA, while the Senate measure doesn’t have this provision.

Upon reading these new auto safety bills including their small point of contention, there seems to be no reason why there should not be a new law very soon. It is unfortunate that the automotive manufacturers and lobbyists keep trying to block this rather than be concerned with consumer’s auto safety. They may perhaps change their tune as the Toyota civil litigation is just beginning and may have a very expensive result for that company.

At the present time, these foreign manufacturers cannot be served or sued as it has been held that there is no jurisdiction over them by the state and federal courts. The person whose child was harmed by a toy with lead paint from China has no recourse in the courts. However, it seems unlikely that the average consumer is aware of this.

This bill would include the following:

• It would require foreign manufacturers of certain products and component parts to designate a registered U.S. agent to accept service of process in a state where the manufacturer has a substantial connection either through importation, distribution, or sale of its products.
• There would be 3 federal agencies (FDA, CPSC, and EPA) that would determine the products and component parts subject to the terms of the bill.
• Each agency would also establish the minimum quantity or value required to trigger the terms of the bill.
• The most important part of this bill is the declaration that designation of a registered agent constitutes consent to jurisdiction by the foreign manufacturer in the courts of that state and in federal courts.

At the present time, a foreign producer cannot readily be held accountable in state courts even if (a) the product was unquestionably dangerous and defective, (b) the harm to the victim was foreseeable, and (c) the foreign producer has sold large numbers of these products in the U.S. in the past.

U. S. manufacturers have the possibility of litigation for any defective products that they sell, and it only seems fair to both the U.S. manufacturer and the consumer that we make foreign manufacturers accountable by holding them liable too. There has been evidence that facing the possibility of litigation in a product liability action creates incentives in a company to create a safer product.

Propensity to Roll Over

For nearly a decade, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and several consumer safety advocates have been calling attention to the serious risks posed by these dangerous 15-passenger vans. The 1997 Ford Econoline van that crashed in New York certainly belonged to this category. Ford is saying that this van accident was caused by a badly maintained tire and maintains that the vans are still “perfectly safe” if maintained properly and operated by an experienced driver.

Statistics tell a different story. NHTSA’s numbers show that there were 1,090 deaths between 1997 and 2006 involving 15-passenger vans and 688 of those were rollover accidents. We have to agree with Joan Claybrook, a member of safety advocacy group, Public Citizen, when she says that it is “a criminal act for manufacturers to make these 15-passenger vans.”

Inherently Unstable

These manufacturers know well, and have known for a long time, that these vans are unstable and could roll over even at normal speeds and weather conditions. They have a higher center of gravity and can become increasingly unstable as the van gets fuller. The rollover rate for fully loaded 15-passenger vans is three times the rollover ratio of vans with fewer than five passengers.

Despite these dangers, church groups, universities, childcare centers and other organizations continue to use them because they are a cheap way to transport groups of people. NHTSA, despite what statistics and studies show, has done nothing to create awareness about the dangers of 15-passenger vans. They simply recommend those traveling in these vans to check tire pressure and make sure the vans are not fully occupied. They need to drive home the message that these vans are inherently unsafe. These are death traps that should be taken off our roadways.

Recently, the Japanese auto maker, which has been going through a PR nightmare for the last year, reached an undisclosed settlement in a case which started it all. This wrongful death lawsuit was filed by the family of California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor who was killed along with his wife, daughter and brother-in-law after their loaner Lexus sped out-of-control and crashed on August 28, 2009.

Faulty Floor Mat Caused Crash

Officials determined that the accident occurred after a faulty floor mat, incorrectly installed by the dealer, jammed the accelerator. The settlement does not include the dealership. The Saylor family will pursue a negligent lawsuit against them. Toyota recalled millions of vehicles over the unintended acceleration issue.

Victims Deserve Justice

The auto product liability law firm of BISNAR | CHASE is representing several injured victims and their families in Toyota sudden acceleration cases. We have seen first-hand and heard tragic accounts of the devastating effects these vehicle defects have had on the lives of real people. It must also be noted that Toyota paid a $16.4-million government fine, an unprecedented penalty, for concealing these defects and delaying a much-warranted recall.

Still, Toyota officials have no problem blaming a bulk of sudden acceleration incidents on driver error as opposed to issues with their vehicles. Media reports indicate that at least 100 people have died and thousands seriously injured because of Toyota sudden acceleration problems. It is time that other victims and their families got their day in court and the justice they rightfully deserve.