The Japanese carmaker Honda, has declared that because of a defective airbag, a young malasia girl has died. The responsible of Honda has said: "An airbag exploded abnormally and a woman died".In the United States there have been four deaths from the same cause, two of which were confirmed by Takata and Honda.
Meanwhile the Japanese company denied on Thursday allegations that secret tests conducted on the reliability of its airbags and then hid the results.
"Our company did not conduct these tests in 2004 and in no way hide the results," denying a report in the New York Times.
Honda, the largest customer of Takata, had to call revision million vehicles because of these airbags manufactured in 2000 cars that can explode violently and projecting fragments of metal and plastic against passengers. Takata said the problem could be related to the climate because the substance used to inflate the airbag, ammonium nitrate, it can be impaired if there is high humidity.
The press has meanwhile reported problems in security controls, particularly in Monclova Mexican factory.
The US Agency for Road Safety (NHTSA) has opened an investigation into the case and try to establish the liability of the two companies, which are suspected of hiding a number of incidents over the years.
The United States has also launched complaints and two senators have called for a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.
According to analysts, It have been called to review a total of 16 million of vehicles with this problem, half of them in the United States, from eleven different brands, including Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Chrysler, Mazda, Ford, General Motors and Mitsubishi Motors.
Liability Of Products In Defective Drugs
Every year, thousand of people are injured because of defective drugs, but first of all we must determine the liability for a drug that it is defective, if it produces adverse effects that are not included in the product insert. According to art. 3.1 of Law 22/1994, of July 6, on liability for damage caused by defective products (LPD) "means one defective product that does not offer the security that would legitimately expect, considering all the circumstances and, especially its presentation, the reasonably foreseeable use of it and the time of entry into service. " It follows, without doubt, that if the drug causes side effects are not listed in the leaflet, if there isnt collected interactions or contraindications that actually exist, or doesnt report the maximum consumption, as this can result in effects adverse not listed should be considered defective, because it causes not advised or expected by patients, which in turn are consumers, does not offer the security that would legitimately expect damage in his presentation.
The Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products appropriate, when it detects a problem with a drug, as follows, notes the existence of adverse reactions to reconsidered the risk-benefit balance, the study makes a review of the product found to see if it produce an adverse effects health, analyze what happened, and not only that, they have to declare that the product is harmful, based on the Royal Decree 711/2002, of 19 July, on the pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use. It concluded that the drug's benefits did not outweigh its risks and it is recommended that the product marketing authorizations are withdrawn.
The 15/07/1994, Amanda bought in an open public institution , owned by "Germans Crespi SA ", 47 cans of fumigant insecticide "Keycorc" to disinfect a floor that was riddled with termites and woodworm. The same day , she poured the contents of the 47 boats for every room in the house and sealed the windows. The next day arround 11:45 there was an explosion , which destoyed the building and also it affect to another two propertys
Several neighbors and their respective insurers have demand to: Amanda , Eduardo Paulino , Jesus Carlos , David, "Germans Crespi , SA" , " Key Industrial Chemistry , SA" and Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food , and request compensation for damages suffered. The Court of First Instance# 4 of Palma de Mallorca ( 1.12.1999 ) partly estimated demand and condemns to Amanda ,Eduardo and "Germans Crespi , SA". The Provincial Court of Palma
Mallorca ( Section 4 , 30.3.2001 ) estimates in part the appeals filed by the
plaintiffs and extends the sentence to" Key Industrial Chemistry SA" and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Finally the supreme estimates the appeals brought by the defendants , and dismissed the claims. According to the court , the damage occurred as result of misuse of the product by Amanda , so there causal link between the harm suffered and the sale of the product . On the other hand , It can`t be responsibility of the Administration , because the product had been registered as highly dangerous and also had been labeled with the words " flammable" and "poison."
A man claimed an amount to a workshop for a faulty repair causing a malfunction in the car. Acording to the Consumers and Users Act , arts. 11, 25: 1)The goods or services placed on the market must be safe, 2) Goods or services that , under normal or reasonably foreseeable use, including duration, does not present a risk for the health or safety of persons, or only the minimum risks compatible with the use of goods or services are considered safe and considered admissible in a high level of protection of health and safety of persons . 3) It is prohibited to use the terms consumer or user, the name of consumer and user association or any similar expression to mislead or confuse their nature or legitimacy to defend the rights and interests of consumers and users, to those organizations that do not meet the requirements of this standard or regional regulations applicable to them resulting .
In this case a man, takes his car for an examination in a car workshop. The mechanics tells to this man, that his car has a lot of problems; discs and brake pads were worn , rusty wheels and bearings , mostly the left rear. The man said to only change the damaged bearing, but the same day he receive the vehicle, it breaks down, when he try to contact the shop nobody ansewerd so he decide to repair the vehicle in another shop , such repair amounts to 266,800 pesetas, amount requested to be returned by the defendant .
