The history of personal injury law is not a straight path by any stretch. Most personal injury historians would argue that there is no specific start to when personal injury law began, but legal historians do agree that legal systems have existed in some form since ancient history but usually as a more general common form of law.

Personal injury laws did not come into their own until the 20th century and when personal injury lawyers started advertising their services in the mid-21st century is when personal injury law became far more mainstream.

Here we discover the origination of personal injury law from ancient times through Classical Greek and Roman periods, through res ipsa locuitur, all the way to the first television ads by Jacoby and Meyers to the dawn of the Internet.

The Department of Justice and committees in the U.S. House and Senate are now investigating whether GM delayed recalling Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars with faulty ignition switches, as well as whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) should have demanded the automaker act sooner.

According to depositions filed in a civil lawsuit against GM over the death of a 29-year-old pediatric nurse in the crash of her Chevrolet Cobalt, the company knew a decade before it issued a recall that its Cobalt had an ignition switch problem that could shut off the engine while driving. This would cut off the driver’s power steering and brakes, in addition to safety systems, such as airbags.

GM acknowledged the problem in a 2005 technical service bulletin, a routine notice from automakers to dealers about possible problems and fixes. The bulletin did not tell dealers to put new key covers on the keys of the new Cobalts before they were sold or to alert buyers of the possibility that the key might move out of place and the engine might stall.

According to a report commissioned by The Center for Auto Safety, a private watchdog group in Washington, as many as 303 deaths could have been caused by the defect that prompted GM to recall 1.6 million cars. According to the report, an examination of NHTSA’s Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) found 303 deaths of front seat occupants in the recalled 2005-07 Cobalts and the 2003-07 Ions where the airbags failed to deploy in non-rear impact crashes.

A letter from the Center for Auto Safety to the NHTSA stated that the FARS data clearly showed front seat occupants were being killed in crashes where the airbags did not deploy as soon as the recalled cars hit the road. The letter also stated that the NHTSA could and should have initiated a defect investigation to determine why airbags were not deploying in Cobalts and Ions in increasing numbers.

GM has acknowledged only 12 deaths linked to faulty ignition switches that can disable the cars’ safety systems.

A New York Times analysis of consumer complaints submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that since February 2003 it received an average of two complaints a month about potentially dangerous shutdowns, but it repeatedly responded that there was not enough evidence of a problem to warrant a safety investigation.

According to The New York Times, many of the complaints detailed frightening scenes in which moving cars suddenly stalled at high speeds, on highways, in the middle of city traffic, and while crossing railroad tracks. A number of the complaints warned of catastrophic consequences if something was not done.

GM has recalled six car models because of defective ignition switches that, if bumped or weighed down by a heavy key chain, can shut off engines and power systems, disabling the air bags. On Feb. 13, it recalled 778,000 cars, including the 2005-7 Chevrolet Cobalts and 2007 Pontiac G5. Twelve days later, the company more than doubled the recall, with four more models — the 2003-7 Saturn Ion; the 2006-7 Chevrolet HHR and Pontiac Solstice; and the 2007 Saturn Sky. All of those models used the same ignition switch, and none are in production anymore.

If you have been injured in an accident involving a Chevy Cobalt, please call Marion Munley at Munley Law at 855-866.5529.

A Glasgow home carer who won a landmark personal injury case has seen the verdict overturned on appeal.
Tracey Kennedy successfully sued her employer, Cordia, after falling and injuring her wrist while on “an errand of mercy” at the home of a terminally ill housebound woman in 2010.
It had been thought Lord McEwan’s judgement on the case could help other injured workers seek damages in future.
Cordia appealed against the decision, which has now been thrown out.
Lord McEwan had concluded in last summer’s case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that Cordia was obliged to identify and reduce reasonable risks to staff.
Bad weather
Ms Kennedy had gone out to visit a client in Crookston in Glasgow during bad weather in December 2010, and slipped on ice while trying to reach the door, falling backwards and injuring her wrist.
Her legal team argued that under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Cordia had a duty to ensure that suitable equipment was provided to staff in slippery conditions.
It was also claimed that Cordia were in breach of duty by not providing attachments that Ms Kennedy could have worn over her shoes to give a better grip in snowy and icy conditions.
Cordia argued that Ms Kennedy could have made the decision not to go out that night because conditions were too hazardous.
Ruling in favour of Ms Kennedy in August 2013, Lord McEwan noted that “everyone has to live and work through winters” and that “safety is to be levelled upwards”.
‘Ordinary risk’
However, a panel of three judges overturned that ruling after an appeal at the Court of Session.
Lord Brodie said he could not see how Cordia were under a common law duty to “determine exactly what their competent adult employees should wear on their feet when negotiating the streets of Glasgow”.
He added that such a duty would be an “unwarranted intrusion into the private lives” of workers, adding: “Adults in Scotland can be expected to have experience of negotiating snow and ice in an urban environment and in choosing footwear which will help them to do so.”
Another appeal judge, Lady Smith, added that if Lord McEwan was correct, it would mean that the employer was unreasonably obliged to monitor the weather and street conditions at all places where they were providing care services, check whether there was a risk of slipping, instruct employees what to wear on their feet and run checks on what they were wearing.
“Fundamentally, the risk to the respondent was an ordinary risk arising in a public place from the ordinary facts of life in Scotland,” she said.