Author: Erin Geiger Smith

The massive recall on Toyotas, complete with personal tales from Steve “the Woz” Wozniak on his Prius acceleration, can only mean one thing to lawyers…LAWSUITS!

The ABA Journal’s Martha Neil has a round-up of suits filed so far, but here are some highlights from her report:

• Corpus Christi, Texas plaintiffs’ attorney Robert Hilliard* filed suit last Friday on behalf of a local couple and similarly situated persons. The named plaintiffs are claiming their 2008 Avalon accelerated on its own twice, once causing an accident.
• Ohio attorney Stan Chesley sued (asserting it could turn into a class action) on behalf of a couple seeking compensation from their inability to drive their Toyota — they have apparently suffered no injury.

Though the complaint filed by Hilliard claims “sudden unintended accelerations” have resulted in “16 deaths and 243 injuries,” the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said no deaths have been reported from a stuck accelerator. However, the article noted, five people have been killed when the cars’ pedals were stuck in the floor mat.

This is, of course, a PR nightmare for Toyota, and the litigation issues will not be limited to the car-marker. The wide web of insurers, manufacturers, dealerships and car owners themselves will mean Toyota will be wrapped up in litigation for a long time to come.

*Random disclosure of the day: Back in my associate days, I represented a client who was sued by Hilliard in his personal capacity.

Read the ABA Journal’s full report here.

Join the conversation about this story »

If you bar-b-que in your backyard, and the smoke comes over and causes damage to my house, you should be liable for that damage.

That’s the basic nuisance argument Steve Susman of Susman Godfrey, attorney for the citizens of the tiny Alaskan village, Kivalina, is making to try to force Exxon and Shell to pay for the town’s relocation costs, estimated at as much as $400 million.

The lawsuit claims that oil and energy companies caused damage to the environment, damage that is allegedly causing Kivalina to erode to such an extent that it will soon be uninhabitable. The Kivalina complaint alleged that the companies conspired “to suppress the awareness of the link,” — a conspiracy charge that harkens back to the tobacco litigation.

John Schwartz of The New York Times: The case is one of three major lawsuits filed by environmental groups, private lawyers and state officials around the nation against big producers of heat-trapping gases. And though the village faces a difficult battle, the cases are gathering steam.

In recent months, two federal appeals courts reversed decisions by federal district courts to dismiss climate-change lawsuits, allowing the cases to go forward. In Connecticut, environmental lawyers joined forces with attorneys general of eight states and the City of New York seeking a court order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kivalina case, however, was dismissed by a California federal court judge earlier this year, but is on appeal.

At the dawn of the tobacco litigation, Susman had a chance to represent groups of plaintiffs, but took a pass. A pass that, of course, cost him millions in eventual legal fees. Susman and the firm are handling (along with environmental groups) the Kivalina lawsuit on a pro bono basis.

Many consider these climate change lawsuits far fetched, and Susman himself told the NYT that it’s an uphill climb. “The legal landscape is horrible,” Susman said. “No lawyer can say this is a way to make money.”

Of course, the tobacco litigation started out very uphill as well.

Read Schwartz’s full NYT story, with a round-up of expert opinions, here.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• 10 Law Firms That Are Loving The Financial Crisis
• 11 Lawyers You Definitely Don’t Want To See Across The Aisle
• 2nd Circuit Reinstates Controversial Environmental Lawsuits