Fiat Chrysler (FCA) is recalling almost 1.8 million Ram trucks because of a parking issue that may allow the vehicles to start rolling without the driver’s foot on the brake, or without a key in the ignition. The safety issue which prompted the RAM truck recall involves a defective shifter on the steering column, which may not remain in the “park” position.
The company initiated a recall after reports of seven people suffering injuries and a number of crashes that may be linked to the problem. There may be numerous unreported accidents and injuries related to the defect.
Fiat Chrysler has said the brake-transmission shift interlock device on the affected Ram vehicles can fail from long-term exposure to high interior temperatures caused by an electrical problem. Transmission issues have been the cause of Fiat Chrysler recalls in the past, and their safety record has suffered as a result.
If you have suffered an injury due to a Fiat Chrysler truck defect, contact an experienced attorney to investigate the cause and to work for proper compensation on your behalf.
Joe Lyon is a highly-rated Catastrophic Injury and Product Liability lawyer representing plaintiffs nationwide in a wide variety of consumer product liability and automobile defect cases like the RAM truck recall litigation.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has issued a voluntary recall of 1.8 million Ram pickup trucks that could be shifted out of park without the driver’s foot on the brake. Of the 1.8 million vehicles recalled, around 1.48 million of the trucks were sold in the United States, with the remaining 290,000 trucks mostly sold in Canada and Mexico.
The models below are affected, but Ram has noted that most of the recalled vehicles are of the heavy-duty variants on the list:
The rollaway issue for Fiat Chrysler is caused by defective steering column shifters. An auto part called the brake transmission shift interlock, which is supposed to ensure a vehicle is not shifted out of park without engaging the brake, has been overheating in Ram trucks.
In some cases, the column shifter has been moved out of the “park” position without pressing the brake or even without putting a key in the ignition. This creates an obvious rollaway hazard.
According to Fiat Chrysler, the overheating issue is caused in part by drivers leaving their feet on the brake pedal while idling in park. As a safety precaution, Ram has advised owners to apply the parking brake each and every time the vehicle is put in park.
This particular RAM Truck recall involves a large number of vehicles, but it is not unusual for Fiat Chrysler, who has issued many recalled in the recent past. Two years ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fined Fiat Chrysler $105 million for failing to promptly notify vehicle owners of recalls and delaying repairs of defective models in 23 recalls which encompassed 11 million vehicles.
A transmission recall is also nothing new for the carmaker. In 2016, Fiat Chrysler recalled about 800,000 vehicles in the United States because owners were having a hard time understanding how a new rocker-style gear shifter worked properly. In 2017, FCA recalled almost 8,000 Challengers for a software defect that wouldn’t shift the transmission into park when the driver moved the shift lever to “P.”
In 2016, FAC faced scrutiny when a famous actor, Anton Yelchin, was killed when his Jeep Grand Cherokee, made by Fiat Chrysler, rolled down his driveway and hit him. The vehicle had been part of yet another recall related to a defective electronic gearshift.
Many product liability cases have had a positive impact on public health and safety, and we have witnessed improved lives and future injuries prevented as companies are forced to remove products and change designs and warnings as a result of litigation.
Product liability lawsuits often contain causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Strict liability applies to different factors than negligence-based claims.
In negligence cases, the actions of the defendant are the focus. In strict liability claims, the focus is on the condition of a product at the time it left the manufacturer. If a product is determined to be defective, the company is liable for any foreseeable injuries that are in-part caused by the defective condition of the product.
A product is defective if it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. A legal cause of action can be based on several types of product defects. The following are Cincinnati product liability and strict liability claims available in Ohio and in most jurisdictions nationwide:
(1) Manufacturing/ Construction Defect:
These issues arise where the product is released from the factory in a manner that deviates from the intended design or specifications. The defect can be a result of using the wrong materials, including the wrong or completely foreign materials (e.g., Tylenol contamination, food poisoning, damaged car part from factory installation).
As a result of the deviation, the product enters the market in an unreasonably dangerous condition and the consumer is exposed to or purchases a product that is defective. Any personal injuries or economic loss that arise from the the defect are compensable under Ohio product liability law.
(2) Defective design and/or formulation:
Defective design product liability cases arise not because a mistake was made during the manufacturing process, but rather the original design of the product is unreasonably dangerous. A “risk benefit analysis” is used to determine whether safer/less expensive alternative designs were available to the manufacturer.
Federal regulations set minimum standards for the design of many consumer products, and preemption defenses may preclude liability in some situations if the manufacturer follows and obtains federal approval for a product. Automotive recalls and product liability cases are usually a result of a defective design. Common cases include the Toyota Brake Recall, Chrysler Gen III seat belt buckle, lap belt only cases, Metal on Metal hip implants, transvaginal mesh.)
(3) Failure to warn or inadequate warning or instruction associated with the product:
All consumer products come with necessary and appropriate warnings and instructions for use. If the lack of a warning makes the product and use of the product unsafe, the manufacturer is liable for the failure to place the warning. The most common area of litigation for failure to warn is in pharmaceutical litigation.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to warn of the known or foreseeable side effects and update the warnings in a timely manner. Litigation arises where there is evidence the manufacturer failed to timely update a warning in light of new data or simply ignored the risk and failed to conduct sufficient research to identify and then disclose the risk.
The product fails to conform to a representation or warranty. Warranty claims are more common in commercial and economic loss cases than in personal injury cases. In many States, The Product Liability Act does not apply to cases with only economic loss, because the Commercial Code provides recourse for breach of warranty.
The warranty may be written or implied based upon the products intended purpose and merchantability. An example of a breach of warranty cases are cases involving automotive defects.
Risks: The following factors are considered under Ohio law when determining the risks associated with the design of a product: (1) the magnitude of the risk of injury; (2) ordinary consumer awareness of the risk for injury; (3) the likelihood of causing injury; (4) the violation of a private or public standard; and (5) the consumer’s expectation of the performance of the product and level of danger. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (B) Product Defective in Design or Formulation.
Benefits: The following factors are considered under Ohio law when determining the benefits associated with product design: (1) the utility of the product; (2) availability of an alternative design; (3) the magnitude of risks associated with an alternative design. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (c)
Defenses for Defective Design: (1) a pharmaceutical drug or medical device is not defective by design if it contains an adequate warning of an unavoidably unsafe aspect of the pharmaceutical or medical device; (2) the dangerous aspect is inherent to the product, recognizable, and cannot be eliminated without compromising the product’s usefulness; (3) a lack of a feasible alternative design. 2307.75 (d)(e)(f).
A manufacturing defect is based on a defect that occurred during the manufacturing process. Many auto companies have been involved in this kind of product liability lawsuits in recent years, due to defective airbags, software defects, tire failure, and other dangerous manufacturing errors.
Most manufacturing defect cases are based on a products deviation from the intended specification, formula, performance standards, or design model. In such cases, it may be easy to determine the product did not comply with the intended design.
The product may be recalled as a specific lot is identified as being non-compliant and defective. A product may be defective in manufacture or construction, materials and assembly, and a manufacturer or distributor may be subject to strict liability, even though it exercised all possible care. Ohio Revised Code 2307.74.
Manufacturing Defect Examples:
In determining whether a product is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction, evidence must be presented to prove:
Defenses to Failure to Warn Claims: (1) the risk was open and obvious or a matter of common knowledge; and (2) in cases of a pharmaceutical drug or medical device, the warning was provided to the prescribing physician (“Learned Intermediary Doctrine”).
Many pharmaceutical companies have been targeted in failure to warn lawsuits for either failing to place warnings on medication guides and packaging or failing to properly test their product before putting it to market.