Updated: Filed today in Portland, an ATV Rhino injury case for a man injured in the Oregon dunes.  I am working on the case with Oregon and California lawyers, and I imagine it will be a major campaign. Here is a copy of the complaint filed today: pld-complaint-pena

The Yamaha Rhino has been subjected to a recall. It lacks doors, has a high center of gravity and has a number of other defects that makes it dangerous.  If you have a Rhino, please check the recall information before using it.  Prior post on the recall here.

David Sugerman

Today’s news confirms a problem that I’ve been hearing about for a while. Yamaha USA recalled its popular side-by-side Rhino off-road vehicle.  I am handling Rhino cases, so I’m not surprised.  As with the 1980s-era “All-terrain vehicles,” the Rhino appears to suffer from a number of design flaws that pose hazards to users.

There have been many reports of serious injuries and deaths associated with this vehicle. Let’s hope that the recall leads to modifications that improve the safety of the vehicle. Meantime, if you have one of these vehicles, you should look into this issue.

By the way, here’s the 800 number for more information on the recall: 800-962-7926. This is reportedly a Yamaha number.  If you’ve been injured by the vehicle, it would be wise to get legal advice, especially before contacting Yamaha.  If I can be of service on these issues, please feel free to contact me. Best bet is by phone at 503.224.6602.

David Sugerman

George Orwell would have marvelled at the name, “The Center for Consumer Freedom.” Is that a great name or what? So why are they opposed to food labeling requirements? Why do they claim that the obesity epidemic is a contrivance? And why do they counsel consumers to get written waivers from guests before serving unlabeled Thanksgiving dinners that might have lots of calories and fats?

The “Center for Consumer Freedom” is a front for food processors, manufacturers, and fast food restaurant chains. It was started with seed money from tobacco giant Philip Morris.  According to the Center, it’s the evil trial lawyers that you need to fear at the Thanksgiving table. Full disclosure: While I don’t think of myself as evil, I am, in fact, a trial lawyer.

So here’s a question for the Orwellian people at Center for Consumer Freedom: What are you afraid of? What do you and your funders fear? Is it that informed consumers might make choices that hurt sales and profits? Is it that the calorie dense corn syrup-fueled commodities might lose their sweet and profitable allure once consumers have the ability to make choices? One of the things lost on the deregulation crowd (say, “oink!” all) is that disclosure rules provide the best form of regulation. When consumers have information, they can choose with knowledge. Isn’t that preferable to rules that prohibit things?

At bottom, the food industry makes choices in what it puts in its products. If you want to blame us for “being fat” then surely you can’t oppose giving us the information that allows us to make smart choices. Or can you?

In the end, it’s easy to demonize the trial lawyers. But we didn’t start spiking processed foods with high-fructose corn syrup. But even worse, the disclosure rules opposed by the “Center for Consumer Freedom” would lessen lawsuits.  If consumers know what they’re getting, they have literally no cause to complain. So–to quote one of their fund sources from an old campaign–Where’s the beef?

David Sugerman

The rush to the bottom isn’t quite over yet, as the Bush administration seems intent on passing last minute regulations to harm consumers and help big business. The range is breathtaking. It includes loosening worker safety rules, clean water standards and–here’s today’s dose of irony–easing regulations on securities.

Before the financial crash and deepening recession, it would have been easy to write this off as misguided zealots pushing through the final touches on the deregulation agenda. But after the collapse it’s just plain greed, jet-fueled by a dangerous mix of urgency and stupidity.

David Sugerman

Here’s the US Department of Agriculture’s brochure on new rules requiring labeling of the country of orgiin of meats, fish and produce.  At the same time, the State of California is requiring larger restaurant chains to provide calorie and nutrition information to consumers. Both sets of rules provide important information to consumers, though each works on different parts of food issues.

I’m a fan of both, even if they will no doubt draw the ire of those who say that there are too many regulations.

As to country of origin rules, until China puts systems in place to provide safe products, I’m not feeding my kids food from there. Apart from that, country of origin labeling helps with a separate problem. It takes an awful lot of oil to grow and ship kiwis from New Zealand and grapes from Chile to North America. My preference is to buy food that doesn’t consume Middle Eastern oil or add more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.  So country of origin labeling helps a little on that front.

And as for the food menu calorie rules, we’ve got the whole obesity problem. The theory is that calorie count information will help consumers make wise choices. I’m not sure whether it will work, as I can imagine that more information won’t lead  people to make better food choices at the food court. But even if the new rules don’t lead all consumers to think before they order, providing information gives motivated consumers the ability to make choices.  Put another way, once you know that the Outback’s Bloomin’ Onion appetizer has 2300 calories, you can make informed choices if you’re concerned about weight.

Both sets of rules seem like wise policy to me.

David Sugerman

Back on the kleptocracy, and it looks like the Chamber of Commerce is working to keep its position at the trough by threatening to go to war with the incoming Obama administration. It seems that the Chamber is concerned about how new or revised regulations that reverse the Bush-era’s kleptocracy may affect the Chamber. The Chamber, of course, opposes the rules, claiming that they will benefit plaintiffs’ trial lawyers.

Classic diversion tactic, as the Chamber fails to take responsibility for its role in the financial meltdown. In fact, the Chamber got paid handsomely to lobby against regulation.  In their rush to demonize trial lawyers, the Chamber always forgets to mention its role in lobbying for failed insurance giant, AIG. I’m going to guess that when and if the real story of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets told, trial lawyers will be the least of their concerns.

Meanwhile, let’s be clear about a few things. Americans of all backgrounds, ages, races, and political persuasions voted for change. The kleptocracy is over. No more feeding at the trough. It’s time to put regulations in place because taxpayers–and our children–are going to pay for your greed and the lack of oversight that got us here. It’s time that corporations paid their fair share of taxes. It’s time to make sure that juries decide product safety issues. It’s time for equal pay for the same work, regardless of race or gender. In short, the Chamber of Commerce’s time at the trough is over.

David Sugerman

It’s a bit hard to read about the details of Bill Coultas’ injuries from a helicpoter crash, but doing so gives good insight into why we need a fair and open justice system. Mr. Coultas suffered profound injuries in the helicopter crash. No wonder that survivors and relatives of those who died are pursuing claims arising out of the crash.

The talking heads who criticize the civil justice system mouth stock phrases like, “frivolous lawsuits” and “McDonald’s coffee.” If you’ve heard or uttered those words, you should take a look at Mr. Coultas’ story, as it explains in detail what we mean when we talk about profound injuries.

I don’t know anything about Mr. Coultas’ situation other than what is reported in the linked article. Still, it’s a good read for crticis of the civil justice system.

David Sugerman

This one sent a bit of a chill down my spine, as I have a number of friends, clients, and acquaintances who are insulin-dependent diabetics. Apparently, a labelling error by Covidien, Ltd. has led to a recall of over 400,000 disposable syringes. The error reportedly could result in insulin doses more than double the intended level. Affected products were apparently sold at Sam’s and Wal-Mart.

I don’t like to play fear-monger, but it seems like this is enough of a danger to insulin-dependent diabetics that getting the word out is a good thing.

David Sugerman

I try like heck to avoid the media’s scare-of-the-day mentality. But this New York Times mag report leaves me with one of those bad feelings in the gut.  Drugs manufactured in China? Great. After the various lead paint toy problems, I’ll pass.

Part of the problem is the Wal-Mart syndrome that says that lower prices are always better. In pursuing the lowest possible price, sellers move production off shore. Of course, you could make a car cheaper by simply omitting the brakes. That would be a good example of price slashing going too far.

Call me crazy, but I’ll pay more for aspirin if it means that I’m getting aspirin I can rely on to be safe. Unfortunately, recent Chinese manufacturing scandals give consumers reasons to worry.

David Sugerman

I grew up on Mad magazine, and one of my favorite features was “What they say…What they really mean.” And I’m reminded of that feature with this L.A. Times report on the Food and Drug Administration staff’s opposition to preemption.

Digression, first off, to credit reader JW on the pithy term “Kleptocracy” to describe the current regime’s fondness for allowing all its friends to gather at the trough. JDub says that he got it from wiki. Even so, his reverb is worthy of thanks and recognition.

And then some legal geek background on preemption. It’s a federal legal doctrine–based in the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause–that allows federal law to preempt or displace or block all state laws in a particular field. “State laws” is read broadly to include even a claim that might be based on state law. What it means for purposes of the kleptocracy is that a corporate wrongdoer who injures a citizen need not answer in court if the claim is preempted by federal law.

So one more little piece of foundation for this forehead smacker. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court hears argument in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, Case No. 06-1249. In that case, the Bush Administration and FDA counsel are arguing that federal Food and Drug Act should preempt state law claims.  That’s to say, if you’re injured by a dangerous drug regulated by the FDA, our kleptocrats believe that you shouldn’t be able to sue.

The LA Times article demonstrates the inane basis of the argument. FDA staff knows full well that the agency does not and cannot protect consumers from drug company mistakes and misconduct. So it’s folly to assert that preemption should limit these claims. Back to Mad. They say: “Preemption is the best way to protect consumers because the FDA rigorously monitors drug safety.” What they really mean: “These consumer lawsuits from unsafe products are eating at our profits. We don’t like them.”

David Sugerman