Our Blog

Prius Problems

February 5, 2010

Concerns have been around for a while regarding 2010 Prius brakes, but the story hadn’t received much traction in the news. Amid the huge publicity of the sudden acceleration dangers in other Toyota models, the Prius problem has surfaced in the press.

“Users are noticing defects and there have been accidents,” the Japanese transport minister, Seiji Maehara, said today. “This leads me to believe Toyota has not put consumers first.”

It is believed the Japanese government has ordered Toyota to investigate the Prius brakes and is pressing for a recall. Thursday the NHTSA announced it would open an investigation into the car’s brakes.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Amusement Park Must Keep Patrons Safe

As an attorney who has handled many amusement park injury cases against parks like Six Flags and others, I am concerned when employees continue to fail to keep their patrons safe. An employee of the park knows the ride better than the customers and it is that persons

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply

In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that “The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected

Read Blog