Randy Barnhart

Recall: Power X Bike Chain Defect - Product Liability

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Hazard: The bicycle chain can break, causing a rider to lose control and fall.

Incidents/Injuries: The firm is aware of 11 reports of incidents, including 9 reports of injuries, including lacerations and contusions.

Description: This recall involves “NEXT”-branded men’s 26-inch hybrid bicycles. The bicycles are red or orange. “Power X” and “Suspension” are printed on the frame. Model numbers LBH2611M and LBH2611M2 are included in this recall. The model number is located on the frame between the pedals.

Sold at Walmart from February 2011 through July 2011 for about $100.

Stop using the recalled bicycle and contact the company for a free repair.

Consumer Contact: Bridgeway International at (877) 934-3228 - or visit the firm’s website at www.powerxbike.com.

 

 

NEXT BRANDED BICYCLES SOLD AT WAL-MART

 

The 26-inch bicycles are red or orange and “Power X” and “Suspension” are printed on the frame. 

 

Model Numbers:  LBH2611M and LBH2611M2

 

Bicycles were sold from February 2011 through approximately July 2011 with manufacturing Date Codes between 20110101 to 20110420 (January 1, 2011 and April 20, 2011)

 

 

 

 

Stop using the NEXT Power X bicycle immediately.  Inspect the manufacturing label on the bottom of the bicycle frame. If you have a bicycle that was manufactured between January 1, 2011 and April 20, 2011, please contact Bridgeway International for a free repair.

Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 4

To support the construction of the "innocent seller" statute in Colorado regarding causation, specifically that the causation element of a plaintiff’s claim is a failure to execute recall services with reasonable care, and is not founded on the defect in a product, the reasoning and findings of the Blossman court are helpful:

we find that the record contains evidence authorizing a finding that [plaintiffs’] injuries were a foreseeable consequence of appellant's failure to complete its voluntarily assumed duties with regard to the ... recall program. The jury could have found that appellant offered to distribute the recall information, and then could have concluded either that appellant received the shipment of recall notices ... but never mailed them to its customers, or that appellant did not receive the requested notices, but having assumed the duty to notify its customers a reasonably prudent dealer would have contacted [the manufacturer] when the notices failed to appear. 
Additionally, the jury was authorized to infer that had the notices been mailed to [defendant’s] customers, "this would have produced a chain of events resulting in [replacement of the defective thermostat] at the time [the water heater] was sold...."

The evidence further authorized the jury to find that the explicit language in the recall notices regarding the risk of explosion from leaking gas would have led a gas dealer of ordinary prudence to foresee that users of appliances equipped with the defective Emerson thermostat could be injured in explosions if they were not notified of the danger, and that [defendant’s] negligence in executing its obligation to so notify its customers, . . . was a direct and proximate cause of [plaintiffs’] injuries.

Blossman, 375 S.E.2d at 120-21 (defendant’s “negligent failure to complete its voluntarily assumed duty to distribute the recall notices was the proximate cause of [plaintiffs’] injuries”).

Further, although research indicates that no Colorado appellate court has expressly adopted Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 11 (1998), the principles articulated therein are instructive and authoritative:

One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the seller's failure to recall a product after the time of sale or distribution if:

(a)(1) a governmental directive issued pursuant to a statute or administrative regulation specifically requires the seller or distributor to recall the product; or

(a)(2) the seller or distributor, in the absence of a recall requirement under Subsection (a)(1), undertakes to recall the product; and

(b) the seller or distributor fails to act as a reasonable person in recalling the product.
(Underscoring added).

This shows that the evolution of law recognizes that culpable conduct can be the failure to recall with reasonable care, completely apart from any liability for the defective product itself. Consider requesting a jury instruction reflecting the foregoing principles.

See Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.

Surf to this page for more information on Colorado products liability law.

 

Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 3

Again, nothing in the Colorado Products Liability Act precludes an action against an entity, otherwise also a seller of products, who is not innocent, but allegedly culpable, in some other manner or capacity.

Subsection (1) of the Act, as already construed by the Colorado court of appeals, confirms this construction:

No product liability action shall be commenced or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product or the manufacturer of the part thereof giving rise to the product liability action. Nothing in this part 4 shall be construed to limit any other action from being brought against any seller of a product.

In Brighton Ford, the court found the foregoing “last sentence of the statute providing that the statutory provisions should not be ‘construed to limit any other action from being brought against the seller’ would become meaningless if we were to read section 13-21-402(1) to bar any product liability action.”

In other words, not all actions, including actions which may fall under the rubric of products liability actions, against an entity, otherwise also a seller of products, are barred by the Act.

Duty

When the cause of the damages is alleged to be a failure to use ordinary care in a recall campaign, courts have distinguished between the causation of that failure and the more typical allegation of causation by a defective product in a products liability action.

In Blossman Gas Co. v. Williams, for example, the court held:the evidence authorized a verdict for [plaintiffs] on the issue of [defendant’s] negligent performance of the voluntarily assumed duty to notify its customers of the recall. 375 S.E.2d 117, 119-20 (Ga. App. 1988). The court stated: “It is ancient learning that one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all.” Id. (citing section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of  120 Torts). 

Colorado courts have recognized this ancient learning and have adopted section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of  120 Torts. The court in W. Innovations, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., quoted Section 324A: One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if

(a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or
(b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or
(c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.
187 P.3d 1155, 1161 (Colo. App. 2008).

It cannot be disputed that recall services are calculated to prevent the precise harm which befell plaintiff. May Dept. Stores Co. v. Univ. Hills, Inc., 789 P.2d 434, 441 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989)(“for a service provider to be rendered liable under either Restatement § 323 or § 324A, the service rendered must be ‘reasonably calculated to prevent the type of harm’ that actually befalls the plaintiff”).

See Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Surf to this page for more information on Colorado products liability law.

Target Recalls Children's Lamps - Laceration and Fire Hazards

Hazard: Lamps can overheat, causing the adhesive inside the lamp socket to melt and migrate into the bulb area of the socket. The cooled glue can adhere to the light bulb base and make the bulb difficult to remove which can result in a broken light bulb, posing a risk of laceration to consumers. Melted flammable glue that migrates onto the electrical components of the lamp poses a risk of fire.

Incidents/Injuries: Target has received six reports of glue on the lamp socket melting and migrating into the bulb area of the socket. No injuries have been reported.

via www.cpsc.gov

Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 2

Defendants will likey assert, erroneously, that as a matter of law, a seller cannot be subject to a product liability action unless it can be deemed a “manufacturer” under the Act. Let's take a closer look at the Act, with an emphasis on the clauses actually relevant to the claim of a culpable service provider:

“Product liability action” means any action brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought, for or on account of personal injury, death, or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, installation, preparation, assembly, testing, packaging, labeling, or sale of any product, or the failure to warn or protect against a danger or hazard in the use, misuse, or unintended use of any product, or the failure to provide proper instructions for the use of any product.

C.R.S. § 13-21-401(2). Thus, the Act comprehends those product liability actions, and only those product liability actions, wherein the claim is predicated on damage, whether personal injury or death, caused by, or resulting from, a product. See Carter v. Brighton Ford, Inc., 2010 WL 4361379 (Colo. App. 2010)(“product liability actions are those tort actions which seek damages for injuries and collateral damage caused by defective products”) (underscoring added).

The clauses in the Act which delimit the scope of the Act cannot be ignored. Petron Dev. Co. v. Washington County Bd. of Equalization, 91 P.3d 408, 410 (Colo. App. 2003) (“when interpreting a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision, we look to the ordinary and common meaning of its language, giving effect to every word and term whenever possible”). When the words and terms on causation in the Act are given effect, the correct conclusion is that not every action, whether denominated as a products liability action or otherwise, is precluded by the Act.

Thus, when the causal allegation or element on the claims against a supposed innocent seller are not based on any allegation of a defective product as the cause of plaintiff’s damages, but on the failure, for example, to execute, effect, or implement a recall of a defective product in a reasonable manner or with ordinary care, as the cause, then the Act should not apply.

The firm is committed to ensuring that trial judges are apprised of this correct application of the law.

Part 1 here.

Colorado Products Liability - The Innocent Seller Defense, Part 1

Defendants who are "sellers" of defective products, that is, who sell products with design defects, manufacturing defects, or which fail to provide adequate warnings or instructions on use to minimize the risk of injury or property damage, will typically invoke the Colorado statute, 13-21-401 et seq.

The statute provides that an action cannot be maintained against a "seller" of an allegedly defective product unless:

(1) the seller also manufactured the product,
(2) the manufacturer of the product is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction, or
(3) the seller had actual knowledge of the defect at the time of sale.

Apart from those three exceptions, however, an action against a defendant may not be on account of the defendant's status as a  "seller." Yet, defendants who are also "sellers" will argue that they can only be sued as a "seller" if in fact they sold the defective product which allegedly caused personal injury or damage. With that strategy, defendants will then loudly proclaim themselves as "innocent sellers" in order to invoke the immunity to liability provided by the statute.

Not so fast. Nothing in the statute precludes a suit against a defendant, otherwise also the "seller" of the defective product in question, who is allegedly negligent in some other capacity, for example, on account of their status as a service provider with regard  to the defective product in question. 

Let's say the innocent seller is also an allegedly culpable "recaller," that is, the seller is a link in the chain of a product recall initiated by the manufacturer or ordered by a regulatory entity (for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), because of a defect in the product. What then?

Come back soon for the answer.

NHTSA Receives Ford Freestyle Acceleration Complaints

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it has received 238 complaints involving 2005 through 2007 Freestyles. Eighteen minor crashes were reported with one minor injury

via www.msnbc.msn.com

Clip-on Chairs - Defective!

Consumer Products Safety Commission Launches Interactive Database

The firm keeps tabs on government agencies which play a role in consumer safety relative to defective products. This just came over the wire (okay, in my inbox):

"WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) goes live with the SaferProducts.gov database mandated by Congress, as part of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

Beginning today, consumers are encouraged to visit www.SaferProducts.gov to submit Reports of harm or risks of harm, and to search for safety information on products they own or may be considering buying.

Reporting product safety incidents through this new, easy-to-use site will help CPSC identify product hazards quicker and provide consumers with safety information on products in and around the home.

"CPSC stayed on time and on budget in building this new database," said Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Through SaferProducts.gov consumers will have open access to product safety information that they have never seen before and the information will empower them to make safer choices."

Following procedures set up by the law, CPSC will review all online Reports and have five business days to transmit qualifying Reports to the manufacturer, where practicable. Manufacturers then have 10 business days during which they may respond and provide comments and/or claims. At the end of the 10 day period, if all requirements are met, the Report and the manufacturer's comments will be posted on SaferProducts.gov

It is important that consumers provide CPSC with information that is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge. Reports lacking required information will not be published. Similarly, information in a report of harm determined to be materially inaccurate within the 10 days provided to manufacturers to respond will not be published. Reports that potentially contain confidential information will have such information taken out before the report is posted.

'I believe that an informed consumer is an empowered consumer,' added Chairman Tenenbaum. 'The ability for parents and consumers to search this database for incidents involving a product they already own or are thinking of purchasing will enable them to make independent decisions aimed at keeping their family safe.'

On January 24, CPSC began registering businesses online, and accepting Reports though SaferProducts.gov to test the system. Since then, about 1500 Reports have been filed by consumers online. About 1400 manufacturers have signed up on the Business Portal, so they can receive a copy of a Report about their product in a timely manner via e-mail. Reports accepted during this test period will not be visible to the public but are being processed internally by CPSC as has been done with all Reports in the past.

"We will continue to accept written, phone and fax Reports, as we have for decades," said Chairman Tenenbaum. "What is new and significant today is that we are launching an up-to-date system for letting consumers review safety reports alongside manufacturer comments about those Reports."

Reports received today will be visible and searchable by consumers around the beginning of April. Until then, only CPSC's recall information will be searchable within the database. For more information, go to SaferProducts.gov".

Toyota Sudden Acceleration Trials Not So Sudden

This came over the wires:

The first of scores of lawsuits filed against Toyota Motor Corp. in U.S. federal courts over complaints of unintended acceleration are unlikely to go to trial for at least two years, the judge overseeing the cases said on Friday.

U.S. District Judge James Selna told lawyers at a status conference that he expected so-called bellwether cases -- those he will choose to serve as guides for how the rest of the litigation might proceed -- to be ready for trial during the first quarter of 2013.

Source here. The issues are not limited to jammed floor mats or sticky gas pedals, but implicate the electronic throttle systems in Toyota vehicles. If there is a ghost in the machine, trial lawyers need to become ghost-busters for the jury. 

Insurance Companies File Subrogation Claims Against Toyota

Several more insurance companies have joined Allstate in filing subrogation claims against Toyota for the monies the insurance companies have had to pay out to policy-holders on claims for personal injury and or property damage due to instances of sudden unintended acceleration.

Basically, subrogation is a legal tool by which insurance companies most typically, can recoup monies from the actual party at fault, here allegedly Toyota. The more the law finds and places legal liability on the party who is actually at fault--for the damages caused by product defects, for example, the more the legal system contributes to correcting or at least discouraging negligent conduct. See more about subrogation here, but always consult with an experienced and licensed attorney is and when you have issues involving your insurance policy.

According to the Insurance Journal:

The seven latest companies to bring such subrogation actions against Toyota are: American Automobile Insurance Co., Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., National Surety Corp., Ameriprise Insurance Co., IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. and American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co.

Their suits, brought in three separate filings, come nearly two weeks after it was disclosed that Toyota agreed to pay $10 million to settle legal claims from the family of a California state trooper and three relatives whose fatal car wreck in 2009 helped trigger the automaker's recalls.

Read the entire article here. Toyota continues to deny that there is any defect in any of their vehicles. Why then pay $10 million to the family of the state trooper? Avoid discovery? Preclude public scrutiny? Duck the method by which society uncovers the truth?

Section 3 - Restatement 3rd Torts: Product Liability - Part A

Defendants in product liability cases, like Ford motor Company, are fond of relying on the Texas supreme court’s opinion in Nissan Motor Co. v Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004), for excluding evidence of other similar incidents (OSI). Far more relevant is the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 3 (1998)(“Section 3”):

It may be inferred that the harm sustained by the plaintiff was caused by a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution, without proof of a specific defect, when the incident that harmed the plaintiff:

 (a) was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of product defect; and

 (b) was not, in the particular case, solely the result of causes other than product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution.

While not formally adopted in Colorado, it should be, and the sooner the better.  See AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507, 512 n1 (Colo. 2007)(“the restatements generally provide concise summaries of the law in a certain subject matter and can be persuasive authority”).

The comments to, and illustrations of, Section 3 are important. Section 3

 traces its historical antecedents to the law of negligence, which has long recognized that an inference of negligence may be drawn in cases where the defendant's negligence is the best explanation for the cause of an accident, even if the plaintiff cannot explain the exact nature of the defendant’s conduct. See Restatement, Second, Torts § 328D. As products liability law developed, cases arose in which an inference of product defect could be drawn from the incident in which a product caused plaintiff's harm, without proof of the specific nature of the defect.”

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 3 (1998), comment a (emphasis added). Colorado has long-since adopted Restatement, Second, Torts § 328D. See Branco E. Co. v. Leffler, 482 P.2d 364, 367 (1971), after which Section 3 was modeled.

 

CTLA 2010 Presentation - Attack, Deny, Delay: Industry’s Playbook for Avoiding Consumer Justice

Micro-blogging 15-passenger van defects

The micro-blog platform, posterous.com or tumblr.com, for example,might work best for blogging a specific product defect which risks catastrophic injury or death. 

I started building such a micro-blog, 15-passenger van accident attorney, over the past few weeks to showcase the serious risks of driving and riding in defective 15-passenger vans. Here's a few posts:

Minister of Education, British Columbia: School Districts and 15-passenger vans

University of Montana Phases Out (?) Defective 15-Passenger Vans

Denver Post article: 15-passenger vans have history of deadly rollovers

I hope my micro-blog will be instructive both to other attorneys and to anyone interested in this serious social and legal problem.

Colorado Consumer Protection Act - Update

Know your rights! Two recent cases from the Colorado appellate courts elaborate Colorado's Consumer Protection Act.

The 2 cases are deceptive “advertising” cases, not deceptive “services” cases. Even if an ad is deceptive, consumers are not necessarily deceived by it.  But is a deceptive service deceptive per se?

For example, a deceptive service by a car dealer and/or its associated auto manufacturer? And how is the necessary "public impact" component shown?

In Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 230 P.3d 1275, 1279 (Colo. App. 2010), the court addressed the "CCPA’s Public Impact Element":

A claim brought pursuant to the CCPA must allege, inter alia, that the defendant’s actions have a significant impact upon the public. Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 234 (Colo.1998). To adequately make this allegation, plaintiffs’ complaint must meet the low burden of setting forth facts that, if proved, could establish a public impact “upon any theory of the law.” Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 908 P.2d 1095, 1100 (Colo.1995)(quoting Hinsey v. Jones, 159 Colo. 326, 329, 411 P.2d 242, 244 (1966)) (emphasis omitted).

Thus, we must evaluate whether the facts, as presented by plaintiffs and taken in the light most favorable to them, could establish the requisite public impact element. Factors relevant to this evaluation include “the number of consumers directly affected by the challenged practice”; “the relative sophistication and bargaining power of the consumers affected by the challenged practice”; and “evidence that the challenged practice has previously impacted other consumers or has the significant potential to do so.” Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142, 149 (Colo. 2003)(citing Martinez v. Lewis, 969 P.2d 213, 222 (Colo.1998)).”The Gen. Steel court noted that “Plaintiffs did not allege that they were unsophisticated in relation to Hogan & Hartson, or that they lacked bargaining power when the parties negotiated their representation agreement.”

The following case, citing Walter and reiterating the Rhino factors cited in Gen. Steel, has a better, direct quote from Walter:

“To obtain relief under the CCPA, a claimant must prove, inter alia, that an unfair or deceptive trade practice ‘significantly impact[s] the public as actual or potential consumers.” Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 234 (Colo.1998). Three factors must be considered in determining  public  impact:

(1) The number of consumers directly affected by the challenged practice, (2) the relative sophistication and bargaining power of the consumers affected by the challenged practice, and (3) evidence that the challenged practice has previously impacted other consumers or has the significant potential to do so in the future. Rhino Linings, 62 P.3d at 149.”

So, to suggest an answer to the question posed above, the quote from Walter can be used to construe the Rhino factors, especially the first Rhino factor, as follows: allege that the “number of consumers directly affected” by the dealership's deceptive practice are “potential consumers” of the dealership’s deceptive service, that is, the dealership's future customer-owners.

Does that make sense?

iPhone, Pundits and Bad Legal Opinions - Readers Beware

Everybody has an opinion. Lately, everybody has a legal opinion. You have heard of jail-house lawyers, felons who make the most of their life sentences by reading case law all day. Now, everyone's a lawyer without doing any reading at all. Consider this by one Wilson Rothman (twitter), sci-tech columnist for msnbc.com and cook, about the iPhone 4 and the news that lawsuits have been filed over its apparent defects in reception capabilities:

What's annoying is that lawyers catch wind of this healthy debate and think, "How can I use this to make money?" So, within a week, the first anti-iPhone 4 class action suits have been filed. There are a lot of serious terms being hurled hither and yon, my favorite being "breach of implied warranty of fitness."

But how on earth is anyone going to prove this stuff? It's not enough to show that the iPhone 4 has some reception quirks — I imagine you'd also have to prove that other phones don't. Good luck with that.

See msnbc column here.

Actually, what's more annoying is that sci-tech/cook pundits get wind of these lawsuits and think: how can I fill my next column with some edgy commentary which disparages lawyers and the American legal system? The foregoing by Rothman is complete garbage. His msnbc editor, if indeed he even has one, is as clueless as Rothman.

It is doubtful that the iPhone 4 lawsuits are going to try to prove up the breach of implied warranty claim by showing that the iPhone 4 has "reception quirks." And one does not typically have to prove that other products in the category are free of quirks.  Rothman clearly cooked all that up out of sheer desperation for something to say.

What's truly ironic is that Rothman himself, in the very same silly column, alludes to what could be evidence of a breach of implied warranty!

Steve Jobs' promise that calls would be better because of the new body design? That must have been wishful thinking.

If in fact Steve Jobs made that promise, then that, Mr. Rothman, might be some evidence which would support a breach of warranty claim, or a breach of contract claim, or perhaps a consumer protection act claim.

If Apple customers bought the iPhone 4 on the strength or authority of that promise, which promise of better reception was not in fact kept, how could a lawsuit for breaking that promise, a promise on which customers relied, be "asinine," as Rothman writes in his "legal" opinion masked as a tech column?

No, what is asinine is Rothman failing to exercise a moment's reflection on his opinions to see that he refutes himself.

Rothman is not the only would-be blogger-lawyer with asinine legal opinions which Apple customers read at their peril. See this for more bad legal advice: The Apple-AT&T class action suit should have come years ago.

15-Passenger Van Accident - Stop the Carnage 2

Alert - News Report:

A church van accident over the weekend in Hamblen County [Tennessee] is drawing attention to the safety of 15-passenger vans.

It is an ongoing concern. In fact, federal law prohibits their use for school-related transportation.

"It can much more easily roll over and in a panic situation they won't handle like a car and people can find themselves off the road very quickly,' AAA East Tennessee Spokesman Don Lindsey explained.

Story here.

And this from our neighbor to the north:

The federal government has launched a safety review of 15-passenger vans, such as the one that seven students and a teacher in New Brunswick were travelling in when they were killed in January 2008.

The vans are popular transportation for school boards, sports teams and daycare centres, even though they have a dismal safety record.

Several jurisdictions in Canada and the United States have already conducted safety reviews and found the vans inappropriate for carrying large groups of students.

According to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, 1,100 people in the U.S. were killed in single-vehicle rollovers involving the vans between 1992 and 2002.

Reviews found the vans were three times more likely to roll over than any other vehicle.

Story here.

Are government safety reviews effective? I don't know about Canadian government safety reviews, but here in America we must be aware of what's called regulatory capture (sometimes called interest group capture by political scientists). The serious problem, which infects the constitution and our form of government itself, is this: the agency charged with regulating and policing a particular industry is "captured" by that industry by way of personal influence, money, gifts, travel, information deluge, and partisan propaganda in the mainstream media (and increasingly in the new internet media).

A common scenario is for the particular industry to hire ex-employees of the regulatory agency, paying them much more than they earned as civil servants. You can see where that will go. 

The problem was illustrated by my earlier post on What Happens in Vegas Need Not Stay in Vegas. Stay tuned...

Rollover Risks and Roof Crush - 10 SUVS Tested

Below is a small preview of an important safety report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety about the rollover safety risks associated with roof strength of 10 suvs. Download the document to get a better view.