Rolls-Royce Jet Engines On Boeing 777s Have Engine Flaw

Posted on March 17, 2009 by - Defective Products, Legal News

U.S. transportation regulators are questioning the safety of some Boeing 777s built with Rolls-Royce engines. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is not convinced that procedures recently adopted by airlines flying Boeing 777s will prevent a potentially catastrophic power loss related to a defect in the Rolls-Royce engine. According to reports, Boeing 777s with Rolls-Royce engines could lose power in freezing weather due to accumulation of ice in the fuel supply. This engine defect has already been implicated in two accidents.  One incident occurred last January when a British Airways flight lost power in both engines during final approach and crashed at London’s Heathrow Airport. The aircraft’s landing gear was ripped off.  Only one passenger suffered serious injury. In the second incident a Delta Air Lines Boeing 777 suffered a similar loss of engine power while flying between Shanghai and Atlanta in November. The pilot followed a standard procedure to recover engine power and landed the jet safely at its planned destination. Following the two incidents, Boeing issued new procedures to help prevent ice accumulation, and to recover thrust in cases of ice blockage. The NTSB said that while the mandatory procedures did reduce the risk of ice blocking the fuel supply, the added burden placed on pilots who have to implement them might cause other hazards. The NTSB is recommending that the Federal Aviation Administration require Rolls-Royce to redesign the engine’s heat exchanger to prevent ice from restricting fuel flow. It is also recommending the redesigned part be installed within six months of its certification to fly or during an aircraft’s next scheduled maintenance. Yet despite the urgent nature of its recommendation, the NTSB has not called for the grounding of Boeing 777s with Rolls-Royce engines That means that around 220 Boeing 777s with the potentially deadly engine flaw will stay in the air.

Share
Read More

FDA Drug Approval Is Not A Shield From Lawsuits – Supreme Court Rules

Posted on March 4, 2009 by - Unsafe Drugs

In one of the most important cases in years for injured plaintiffs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a drug company is not protected from injury claims in state court merely because the federal government had approved the product and its labeling.

The 6-to-3 ruling went in favor of a Vermont musician, Diana Levine, who was awarded more than $6 million after losing much of her arm following a botched injection of an anti-nausea drug. It was a defeat for the pharmaceutical company, which had asked the justices to throw out the award, and by extension other companies that might have pursued Wyeth’s line of argument in similar cases. 

This decision has destroyed the drug companies defense that failure to warn claims were barred by federal preemption.  The case marks a great victory for the rights of injured people.  Read the Levine decision here.

Share
Read More

Effective Argument To The Jury – Client Only Gets One Trial

Posted on March 3, 2009 by - Legal Strategies

The phone call.

Why is your decision so important? Why is it so significant?

I want you to imagine that 15 years from now, that I get a phone call from my client. He calls me and says “The verdict is not enough. I’m having medical problems and there’s no money for it. I need some more money. Get that jury back together, they didn’t consider this and tell them they didn’t give me enough. It isn’t fair. I want my leg.”  And I’ll have to tell him “We can’t get them together. Their decision is final. That’s it. It’s binding. What you have is what you got.”

So he hangs up the phone and calls the judge in the case. The judge will have tell him “I’m sorry. I told them to be fair and that their verdict is final. That their decision would have to last your whole life.”

So he calls the defense attorney.  And the defense attorney tells him “I’ll tell you just like I  did in court. It’s too bad you got hurt, but it’s your fault.” Then the defense attorney hangs up on him.

Your verdict is final and has to stand the test of time

Share
Read More

Circumstantial Evidence That Driver Was On Cell Phone At Time of Collision Was Sufficient to Prove Negligence

Posted on March 2, 2009 by - Car Accidents

The Indiana Appellate court recently held that circumstantial evidence suggesting that a driver was on his cell phone at the time of the motor vehicle collision was enough to establish an inference of negligence.  In the case, the injured plaintiff was stopped at a red light when she was rear ended by the defendant.  When the defendant got out of his vehicle he had a cell phone in his hand and claimed that it was not working.  However, later on while the defendant was still at the accident scene he was observed using the cell phone.  The jury found in the injured plaintiff’s favor.  Defendant appealed arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish negligence.  The appellate court disagreed.  The court found the following.  One, there was no bad weather, road defects or other excuse for the collision.  Two, defendant’s claim that his cell phone was not working when it actually was working provides a reasonable inference that the defendant tried to conceal the fact that he was using the phone at the time of the accident.  Three, defendant offered no explanation as to why he stated that his cell phone was not working.

Share
Read More

Failure to Treat Sepsis – Medical Malpractice

Posted on January 29, 2009 by - Medical and Dental Malpractice

The United States Government agreed to pay a former Utah family nearly $1 million to settle a medical malpractice case involving failure to treat infection / sepsis. The man was being treated for leukemia at at a Veterans Affairs hospital in 2004 when he developed a severe infection and died. His surviving wife and daughter filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the hospital told him to take gas-x instead of going to the emergency room to get antibiotics. The man was diagnosed with leukemia in June 2004 and received chemotherapy at the VA in October. Three days after his last treatment, he had diarrhea and abdominal pain. After calling the hospital to see what to do, his wife was told by an oncology doctor that the man should take an over-the-counter medicine for gas. What he really needed were antibiotics immediately to fight off a severe infection.  He did not receive the antibotics and died and preventable death.

Share
Read More