On September 29, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alerted consumers about Toyota and Lexus vehicles experiencing unintended acceleration due to the accelerator becoming stuck.

According to the NHTSA press release, floor mats in certain Toyota and Lexus models have caused the accelerator pedal to catch, causing rapid acceleration after releasing the pedal.

Toyota began mailing letters to owners of potentially affected vehicles. For the time being, NHTSA and Toyota urge vehicle owners to take out any removable floor mats. The mats should not be replaced with any other mat.

Toyota and Lexus vehicles affected by this consumer alert are:

• 2007-2010 Camry


• 2005-2010 Avalon


• 2004-2009 Prius


• 2005-2010 Tacoma


• 2007-2010 Tundra


• 2007-2010 ES 350


• 2006-2010 IS 250 and IS350

Kurt Niland, of Beasley Allen Legal News offers more information on the recall and Toyota's remedial measures:

The recall is the largest ever for Toyota and the fifth largest recall of a consumer product in the United States.

"Toyota has become too big and distant from its customers," President Akio Toyoda, he told journalists in Tokyo last month. "We are grasping for salvation," he added, after apologizing for an accident that occurred in San Diego last August, which investigators say was caused when a floor mat jammed the accelerator pedal in a Lexus ES 350. The horrific accident claimed the lives of a California Highway Patrol officer and three of his family members, finally prompting the massive recall.

On November 4, 2009, the FDA introduced its "Safe Use Initiative," an effort to collaborate with the health care field to reduce the preventable harm resulting from medication use and misuse.

The Initiative is in response to the millions of consumers who are harmed each year because of the misuse of medications. The inappropriate use of medications can be a result of several factors, including (1) incomplete access to information, (2) unintentional misuse of medications, medication abuse, and attempts by people to harm themselves with medications, or (3) taking prescription drugs prescribed for other people.

Taking prescription drugs prescribed for other people is a serious abuse, as even one single dose of certain medications, such as opioid drugs, can cause severe harm or death to the person not prescribed the medication.

Through the Initiative, the FDA will work alongside health care professionals to identify drugs that are linked to preventable harm. The FDA intends to collaborate with health care professionals to (1) evaluate consumer medication information, (2) communicate about the risk of inadvertent overexposure to acetaminophen, (3) apply safeguards against surgery fires caused by alcohol-based surgical preparations, and (4) avoid contamination of multiple-use medication vials.

The American Association for Justice, in its efforts to promote health care reform, has attacked health care reform opponents' arguments that reform will be a heavy financial burden on the health care system.

"All the facts and evidence show that tort law changes will do practically nothing to lower costs or cover the uninsured," said AAJ President Anthony Tarricone. "It's no wonder the tort reformers, insurance lobby, and other corporate front groups have to gin up lies and phony stats, since no legitimate data or research supports their claims. Our focus should be on reducing the 98,000 deaths by medical error that occurs every year, not limiting patients' legal rights."

The AAJ takes a look at the misconceptions behind the most common positions of health care reform opponents in its Five Myths About Medical Negligence:

• Myth #1: There are too many "frivolous" malpractice lawsuits.

Fact: There's an epidemic of medical negligence, not lawsuits. Only one in eight people injured by medical negligence ever file suit. Civil filings have declined eight percent over the last decade, and are less than one percent of the whole civil docket. A 2006 Harvard study found that 97 percent of claims were meritorious, stating, "portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown."

• Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.

Fact: According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the total spent defending claims and compensating victims of medical negligence was just 0.3% of health care costs, and the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have made similar findings.

• Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.

Fact: Then where are they going? According to the American Medical Association's own data, the number of practicing physicians in the United States has been growing steadily for decades. Not only are there more doctors, but the number of doctors is increasing faster than population growth. Despite the cries of physicians fleeing multiple states, the number of physicians increased in every state, and only four states saw growth slower than population growth; these four states all have medical malpractice caps.

• Myth #4: Malpractice claims drive up doctors' premiums

Fact: Empirical research has found that there is little correlation between malpractice payouts and malpractice premiums paid by doctors. A study of the leading medical malpractice insurance companies' financial statements by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that these insurers artificially raised doctors' premiums and misled the public about the nature of medical negligence claims. A previous AAJ report on malpractice insurers found they had earnings higher than 99% of Fortune 500 companies.

• Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.

Fact: Tort reforms are passed under the guise that they will lower physicians' liability premiums. This does not happen. While insurers do pay out less money when damages awards are capped, they do not pass the savings along to doctors by lowering premiums. Even the most ardent tort reformers have been caught stating that tort reform will have no effect on insurance rates.

For Five Myths About Medical Negligence in its entirety, click here

The FDA urges caution when searching for H1N1 products on the internet because many unapproved H1N1 products purport to prevent, diagnose, or treat H1N1.

The FDA warns consumers of the potential danger of these products and cautions consumers that they should use only FDA approved products from licensed pharmacies. The potential dangers of using unapproved FDA products include an "increased risk of suffering life-threatening adverse events such as side effects from inappropriately using prescription medications, dangerous drug interactions, contaminated drugs, and impure or unknown ingredients found in unapproved drugs."

Currently, Tamiflu and Relenza are the only two FDA-approved antiviral drugs to treat H1N1.

With unapproved products, you can't be sure what you're getting. For example, the FDA, in monitoring the web for unapproved products, ordered a shipment of what was purported online to be Tamiflu. The FDA received an an unmarked envelope postmarked from India. The envelope contained "unlabeled, white tablets taped between two pieces of paper." The tablets were analyzed, and it was determined that they contained talc and acetaminophen (fever reducer and pain reliever). The tablets did not contain oseltamivir, the active ingredient of Tamiflu.

Among the products that the FDA has targeted:

• a shampoo said to protect against the H1N1 flu virus
• a dietary supplement said to protect infants and young children from contracting the virus
• a "new" supplement said to cure H1N1 flu infection within four to eight hours
• a spray that claims to leave a layer of ionic silver on one's hands that kills the flu virus
• several diagnostic tests that have not been approved to detect the H1N1 flu virus
• an electronic instrument whose sellers claim uses "photobiotic energy" and "deeply penetrating mega-frequency life-force energy waves" to strengthen the immune system and prevent symptoms associated with H1N1 viral infection

For more info from the FDA, click here

The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the liability of a hotel for injuries occurring in an automobile accident after evicting intoxicated persons from the hotel premises in Rodriguez v. Primadonna Company, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 45 (October 1, 2009).

In Rodriguez, 17 year old Fabian Santiago had been drinking with his two adult uncles, Manuel and Daniel Garibay, on hotel property where they were checked in as guests. They became disruptive, and hotel security intervened. The hotel security officers' requested that Fabian and his uncles leave the property. Hotel security accompanied the three men as they retrieved their belongings. Manuel told another guest that the three of them were going to their car in the parking lot to "sleep it off." Manuel had not intended to drive, as he did not have valid license and he believed he was too intoxicated. When the men were escorted to their vehicle, Manuel told Daniel he was sober enough to drive. Hotel security personnel informed the men, seated in their car, that they had to leave the hotel parking lot and exit hotel property. After leaving the property, Manuel rolled the vehicle while driving at approximately 80 miles per hour. 17 year old Fabian suffered extreme spinal injuries and, as a result, is quadriplegic.

In addressing the claim of negligent eviction, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the hotel owed an affirmative duty to ensure Fabian's safety after he was evicted from hotel property. The Court reviewed Nevada law regarding intoxicated patrons:

• In Nevada, hotel proprietors have the statutory right to evict from the premises anyone who acts in a disorderly manner or who causes a public disturbance in or upon the premises. NRS 651.020.[1]


• In Nevada, commercial liquor vendors, including hotel proprietors, cannot be held liable for damages related to any injuries caused by the intoxicated patron, which are sustained by either the intoxicated patron or a third party, including when the intoxicated patron is a minor.


• Nevada subscribes to the rationale underlying the nonliability principle--that individuals, drunk or sober, are responsible for their torts.

The Court concluded that "when a hotel proprietor rightly evicts a disorderly, intoxicated patron, the hotel proprietor is not liable for any torts that an evicted patron commits after he or she is evicted that result in injury." The proprietor does not have the duty to prevent injuries caused by the intoxicated patron that are sustained either by the patron or by third parties after the eviction has been executed.

The Court did recognize that hotel proprietors do have a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances. The Court stated, however, that in accordance with the principles underlying Nevada's rejection of dram-shop liability, so long as a proprietor does not use unreasonable force in evicting a patron, the hotel proprietor is not required to consider a patron's level of intoxication in order to prevent speculative injuries that could occur off the proprietor's premises.

Thus, although the hotel may have known that Fabian's step-uncle was intoxicated and could not safely drive, the Court concluded, "as a matter of law, that Primadonna did not have the duty to arrange safer transportation, prevent an intoxicated driver from driving, or prevent Fabian, a passenger, from riding with a drunk driver."

In Delgado v. American Family Ins. Group, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 44 (October 1, 2009), the Nevada Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the passenger in an automobile who is injured by the concurrent negligence of the drivers in a two-car accident "may recover under the permissive driver's insurance policy both liability benefits based on the policyholder's negligence and underinsured motorist benefits based on the other driver's underinsured status."

The plaintiff passenger had made a claim against both at-fault drivers' insurance policies and recovered the liability limits under those policies. She then made a claim against the permissive driver's underinsured motorist policy, alleging that the at-fault policies did not cover the extent of her damages.

The Court rejected the application of the anti-stacking rules under the Nevada case law. In Nevada, once a passenger has recovered under the vehicle owner's liability policy--whether that policy is the permissive driver's policy or the passenger's own policy--the passenger may not also recover under the owner's uninsured/underinsured motorist policy, although the guest passenger may stack their own UM/UIM coverage with the benefits they receive from the owner's policy. Baker v. Criterion Insurance, 107 Nev. 25, 805 P.2d 599 (1991).

Distinguishing the anti-stacking situation, the Court concluded that "a passenger who is injured by two concurrently negligent drivers may recover from both the permissive driver's single insurance policy liability benefits based on the permissive driver's negligence and underinsured motorist benefits based on the other driver's underinsured status."

The Court clarified that the antistacking rule under Nevada law was not implicated by this case. Thus, a passenger whose injuries are attributable to two jointly negligent drivers and who exhausts the liability limits of the permissive driver's policy without satisfying his damages may seek recovery under the permissive driver's underinsured motorist policy based on the other driver's underinsured status.

With the death toll from H1N1 rising in Nevada, we should all be taking everyday precautions to stay healthy.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention suggests everyday steps to protect your health:

• Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread this way.
• Try to avoid close contact with sick people.
• If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Keep away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick.

Other important actions that you can take are:

• Follow public health advice regarding school closures, avoiding crowds and other social distancing measures.
• Be prepared in case you get sick and need to stay home for a week or so; a supply of over-the-counter medicines, alcohol-based hand rubs * (for when soap and water are not available), tissues and other related items could help you to avoid the need to make trips out in public while you are sick and contagious.

More on Handwashing from CDC: Washing your hands often will help protect you from germs. CDC recommends that when you wash your hands -- with soap and warm water -- that you wash for 15 to 20 seconds. When soap and water are not available, alcohol-based disposable hand wipes or gel sanitizers may be used.* You can find them in most supermarkets and drugstores. If using gel, rub your hands until the gel is dry. The gel doesn't need water to work; the alcohol in it kills the germs on your hands.