Court strikes down federal law protecting rental car companies

A Florida court recently ruled that a man injured in a car accident could sue the car rental agency that leased a vehicle involved in the accident.

The injured man claimed the leased vehicle was a “dangerous instrumentality” under Florida law, and the car rental agency should be responsible for his injuries as a result. However, the car agency said it couldn’t be sued because a federal law immunized it from personal injury claims.

But a federal court in Florida struck down the federal law, ruling it was unconstitutional and that the customer’s lawsuit based on Florida law could proceed. The court said Congress had gone too far in attempting to preclude state laws permitting individuals to sue

car rental companies for injuries resulting from the use of their vehicles.

Patients blame gambling compulsions on drug

Santo Salafia, a 71-year-old Italian immigrant and retired laborer in Middletown, Conn., lived frugally and never gambled in his entire life.

But in April 2002, shortly after he began taking the drug Mirapex to control his Parkinson’s disease, he started driving to a Connecticut Indian casino each day. His gambling habit quickly escalated, and Salafia began borrowing money from friends and family. Eventually, he gambled away his life savings and $150,000 retirement pension.

Salafia is among hundreds of patients who claim Mirapex – a widely prescribed drug used to treat Parkinson’s disease and Restless Leg Syndrome – has caused them to develop pathological gambling compulsions.

Lawsuits filed in federal and state courts claim that Boehringer Ingelheim, a Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company, concealed information that its drug could cause patients to develop gambling addictions and other compulsive behaviors.

Introduced to the market in 1997, Mirapex stimulates dopamine receptors, mimicking the action of dopamine on the brain in areas associated with addictive behaviors. The world’s best-selling dopamine enhancer, Mirapex posted annual net sales of $744 million as of October 2006.

Mayo Clinic studies in July 2005 and January 2007 reported a link between pathological gambling and Mirapex. Like a light switch being turned off, gambling addicts lost their yearning to wager within weeks after they stopped using the drug.

Boehringer Ingelheim beefed up Mirapex’s label twice – in March 2005 and February 2006 – to mention a possible link between the drug and compulsive behaviors, including gambling and hyper-sexuality. The latest Mirapex television advertising campaign also mentions compulsive gambling.

Those filing suit claim Boehringer Ingelheim deliberately hid evidence of compulsive behavior discovered during clinical trials. They allege the drug company continued to deny there was any evidence linking Mirapex to compulsive behavior, even after media reports began appearing about users developing gambling problems. The drug hit the market in 1997 and warnings about gambling didn’t appear on the label until 2005.

Nearly 200 suits have been filed in Connecticut, Minnesota and New York against the makers of Mirapex, as well as Pfizer, Pharmacia Corp. and Pharmacia & Upjohn for helping to research and distribute the drug. More lawsuits are expected.

Parents win $10.4M in car seat suit

A Montana jury recently ordered child safety seat maker Evenflo Co. to pay $10.4 million to the parents of a 4-month-old boy who died of head injuries in a car crash.

The verdict included $3.7 million in punitive damages to Chad and Jessica Malcolm for the death of their son, Tyler.

The child was killed in July 2000 when he struck his head on his car seat’s hard plastic shell when the seat was ejected

from a vehicle in a rollover crash. The parents claimed Evenflo had considered and then decided against lining with foam the shell of the “On My Way” car seats. The parents also claimed the seat was ejected from the vehicle because a hook broke loose from the seat.

Evenflo has lost at least three cases over its car seats totaling $19.6 million in damages.

Injured driving class student can sue school district

An adult education student injured during a truck driving class can sue a public school district for negligence.

The student enrolled in a professional truck driving class offered by a local school district. He was injured during an unsupervised exercise when he fell off the back of the trailer as other students attempted to load items onto his rig.

He sued the school district, which

argued it was not responsible for the accident because the student assumed the risks of the class when he signed up.

But the California Court of Appeal decided the truck driving course was not an “inherently dangerous activity” and there was no risk the student could legally assume.

Smoker’s family entitled to $500,000

The family of a smoker could sue despite the fact the smoker filed her own personal injury claims while she was alive.

The husband and children of a long-time smoker filed a wrongful death suit against Brown & Williamson after the woman died from a heart attack at age 73. The company argued the case wasn’t allowed because during her lifetime, the smoker had filed various personal injury claims against the tobacco company in federal court.

But the Missouri Court of Appeals decided that prior personal injury lawsuits do not mean the family of

an injured person can’t file a claim for wrongful death.

The court said the family could recover for such things as loss of services and companionship the smoker would have provided had she lived. The family won $500,000.

Riding lawnmowers cause many accidents

Each spring and summer, the number of lawnmower accidents spikes. An estimated 9,400 children are injured each year in accidents, suffering amputations of legs, hands, fingers, feet and toes.

The most serious accidents occur when operators back up rider mowers with the mower blades engaged and run over small children they can’t see.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, back-over accidents alone account for 560 injuries to children each year.

Results of various lawsuits have been mixed.

A Virginia family in 2004 won $2 million in damages from the manufacturer after a boy was killed by a riding lawnmower at his day care provider’s home. The provider’s husband, who was mowing the yard, backed up and didn’t see the boy.

Several other individuals have won jury verdicts in lawsuits claiming the design of various riding mowers was defective. However, other lawsuits have not been successful.

A number of studies have shown the danger of back-over accidents is real. In response to these studies, the lawn mower industry in 2003 adopted a voluntary industry safety standard that new rider mowers will have a

“no-mow-in-reverse feature” to prevent the mower from backing up with powered blades. However, the safety standard allows manufacturers to install a device that overrides that feature.

Most override switches are located on the front control of the mower. The academy recommended manufacturers locate the override switches on either the posterior wheel well or behind the seat – which would force the operator to look behind the mower before disengaging the no-mow-in-reverse feature.