Monday morning on "AirTalk" we detailed the new study linking kids' exposure to organophosphate pesticides with increased diagnoses of ADHD. It reminded me of the California official who wanted to assure the public of the safety of malathion. Malathion is a commonly used organophosphate pesticide today, but was sprayed from helicopters back in 1981 in an effort to eradicate the dreaded Medfly.
Then-governor Jerry Brown's chief of staff, B. T. Collins, wanted to assure the public that malathion was safe, and that the aerial spraying would harm only the Medfly. Collins called a news conference, then chug-a-lugged a beaker of malathion solution. The video of his stunt was played across the country.
Unfortunately, malathion was found to be pretty rough on automotive paint. Southland residents were later told to cover their cars if parked in the open.
Sadly, Collins died of a sudden heart attack just over a decade later, while he was serving in the state legislature. He was only 52.
Source
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
GM Sued Under Lemon Law
While Toyota is definitely taking the brunt of recalls lately, other vehicle manufacturers have troubles of their own: GM is currently being sued over a 2009 Chevrolet. The owner of the Chevrolet claims he experienced repeated problems that caused him to fear for his safety.
This is not the first time GM has been sued for safety issues - in 2009 a wrongful death suit was filed against them for defective seat belts. 2009 also saw a recall of almost 1.5 million mid- and full-size Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac vehicles because of an engine oil leak problem that could pose a fire risk.
This kind of defect in a vehicle is precisely what the lemon law is about. It protects consumers from the harm or loss caused by purchasing a defective vehicle. Who has what rights and what duties in lemon law matters? It seems clear. The consumer has the duty to present the vehicle to the manufacturer or its representative, the dealership, in order that they are able to diagnose the defect and repair it. Along with the duty, the consumer has a right to expect the dealership to repair the vehicle honestly and expeditiously.
What are the rights of the manufacturer? Simply put, they have the right to expect that the consumer will present their defective vehicle at an authorized dealer for repair in a timely manner, and that the consumer properly maintain the vehicle. The manufacturer should have no other expectation. They should not expect a consumer to perfectly describe the defect they are experiencing or any other limiting requirement.
Of the thousands of lemon law clients we have spoken with, it is extremely rare that a manufacturer makes a legitimate offer to buy back or replace a defective vehicle. In each of these cases no hint of awareness of their affirmative duty was present.
Not all manufacturers or dealerships are the same. Some, certainly not enough, really do have the consumer’s best interests at heart.
If however you find yourself with a defective vehicle and a manufacturer who is not ready to step up and replace or refund as they should, find yourself an experienced lemon law attorney. Do your homework. Look at their record. See what others who have used their services have to say.
Be certain they offer you a free case evaluation without delay. Never be afraid to ask hard questions. It’s important and it can determine the outcome of your lemon law case.
Source
This is not the first time GM has been sued for safety issues - in 2009 a wrongful death suit was filed against them for defective seat belts. 2009 also saw a recall of almost 1.5 million mid- and full-size Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac vehicles because of an engine oil leak problem that could pose a fire risk.
This kind of defect in a vehicle is precisely what the lemon law is about. It protects consumers from the harm or loss caused by purchasing a defective vehicle. Who has what rights and what duties in lemon law matters? It seems clear. The consumer has the duty to present the vehicle to the manufacturer or its representative, the dealership, in order that they are able to diagnose the defect and repair it. Along with the duty, the consumer has a right to expect the dealership to repair the vehicle honestly and expeditiously.
What are the rights of the manufacturer? Simply put, they have the right to expect that the consumer will present their defective vehicle at an authorized dealer for repair in a timely manner, and that the consumer properly maintain the vehicle. The manufacturer should have no other expectation. They should not expect a consumer to perfectly describe the defect they are experiencing or any other limiting requirement.
Of the thousands of lemon law clients we have spoken with, it is extremely rare that a manufacturer makes a legitimate offer to buy back or replace a defective vehicle. In each of these cases no hint of awareness of their affirmative duty was present.
Not all manufacturers or dealerships are the same. Some, certainly not enough, really do have the consumer’s best interests at heart.
If however you find yourself with a defective vehicle and a manufacturer who is not ready to step up and replace or refund as they should, find yourself an experienced lemon law attorney. Do your homework. Look at their record. See what others who have used their services have to say.
Be certain they offer you a free case evaluation without delay. Never be afraid to ask hard questions. It’s important and it can determine the outcome of your lemon law case.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)