GM Ignition Switch Defect

Have you or a loved one been involved in a car accident involving a GM vehicle that has been recalled? If so, please continue reading to figure out if you have a potential lawsuit.

The Lawler Brown is investigating possible lawsuits on behalf of people who have suffered serious, sometimes deadly injuries, as a result of faulty ignition switches and other serious defects in General Motors vehicles.

The Lawler Brown has a major lawsuit against GM based on a defective ignition switch. Call our firm if you know someone who may have been injured because of these faulty ignition switches.

GM recently publicized recalls for over 10 million vehicles including the 1997 through 2014 model years. The current lawsuits are based on faulty ignition switches which have caused vehicles to suddenly and involuntarily shut down power to the engine and to steering, breaks and airbags, even at high speeds. The switches can slip out of the “on” position, which causes the cars to stall, knocks out power steering and turns off the air bags.

The GM recalls include:

  • Buick Lacrosse 2005-2009
  • Buick Lucerne 2006-2011
  • Buick Regal LS & GS 2004-2005
  • Cadillac Deville 2000-2005
  • Cadillac DTS 2004-2011
  • Chevrolet Cobalt 2005-2010
  • Chevy Monte Carlo 2000-2008
  • Chevy Malibu 1997-2005
  • Chevrolet HHR 2006-2011
  • Chevrolet Impala 2000-2014
  • Oldsmobile Intrigue 1998-2002
  • Oldsmobile Alero 1999-2004
  • Pontiac G5 2007-2010
  • Pontiac Solstice 2006-2010
  • Pontiac Grand Prix 2004-2008
  • Saturn Ion 2003-2007
  • Saturn Sky 2007-2010

 

So far the GM ignition defect has been linked to numerous crashes throughout the United States causing numerous serious injuries and at least 38 deaths.

GM has issued recalls in addition to ignition switches. In addition to the ignition switches, GM this year has issued record recalls for more than 29 million vehicles. The recall has been based on defects such as improperly installed airbags in SUVs to as well as defective transmission shift cables and poorly designed tail lights and seat belts.

The first bout of recalls in February 2014 led to a Congressional investigation into the faulty ignition switches. Substantial evidence has recently emerged that General Motors was aware of the defected switches for more than a decade, and did nothing to fix the ignition switches despite reports of numerous accidents caused by the faulty switches. Reports indicate that while GM knew about the faulty ignition switches for more than a decade, they chose not to recall them until February of this year. Reports indicate the ignition switches can slide out of the “on” position, which can cause the cars to stall. This stalling can knock out power steering and also turn off the air bags.

If you or anyone you know was seriously injured in an accident involving a faulty ignition switch or other problems with a recalled GM vehicle, you should contact our General Motors recall lawyers for a free case evaluation.

You may be entitled to substantial compensation. The time to act is now so call our office at 618.993.2222.

Lawler Brown handles various types of personal injury cases, including General Motors ignition switch lawsuits. Our firm handles these cases on a contingency basis which means you will not pay anything until you get compensation.

Have questions? We can help!

Would you like to get in touch with us? Please fill out the short form below and we’ll contact you in a manner and at a time of your convenience.

Learn how our knowledge and experience can protect your business interests.

To learn more about our individualized services, click any of the following:

Mineral Rights in Oil and Gas: What You Need to Know

The traditional conception of real property ownership was that a landowner owned his plot of land along with a column of dirt down to the center of the earth and a column of air up to the sky. This conception no longer holds true. It is now common, especially in Southern Illinois, that when one purchases a piece of real property, the purchaser obtains title to the surface of the land, but not the column of dirt beneath it. Very often, the mineral rights to a piece of property have been severed, and the owner of the mineral rights has the authority to mine them. When mineral rights are severed in the conveyance of a piece of property, the severance creates two distinct and separate interests in the land—a surface estate and a mineral estate, either of which can be conveyed, devised, or leased. When this occurs, the owner of the surface estate is subservient to the owner of the mineral estate. This means that he may not interfere with the activities reasonably necessary to extract the minerals from underneath his land. While title to metallic minerals vests2 at the time of conveyance, title to oil and gas does not, due to the tendency of these types of minerals to move around under the earth. Rather, mineral rights in oil and gas do not vest until they are actually discovered. Thus, mineral rights to oil and gas are better conceived of as rights to exploration and, very often, they are mined pursuant to a mineral lease rather than outright ownership. These leases are subject to the same rules as...

When Can Your Neighbors Legally Take Your Land?

When Can Your Neighbors Legally Take Your Land? There is a concept in real estate law that is little known outside the legal world, whereby a trespasser can gain legal title to someone else’s land. The “trespasser” in these cases is usually a neighbor but, nonetheless, someone who does not own your property can become the legal owner by his use of it through a concept known as adverse possession. Claims of adverse possession are creatures of common law in Illinois, and require a showing of several elements. In order to legally take title to land, a person’s use and possession of the land must be: Hostile (against the right of the true owner and without permission) Actual (he or she exercises physical control over the property) Exclusive (In the possession of the trespasser alone and no one else) Open and notorious (the trespasser must use the property as the true owner would without hiding the occupancy) Continuous for a period of 20 years Adverse possession claims are especially common in rural areas (like most of Southern Illinois) as opposed to towns and cities because it is often more difficult to determine where one piece of property ends and another begins. Example of Adverse Possession Let’s take a look at how a hypothetical adverse possession case might play out. Assume there are two property owners—the Smiths and the Joneses—who own neighboring farms. Mr. Smith erects a barn that he believes is on his property, but is actually 15 feet over the property line on the Jones’s farm. Mr. Jones says nothing about this, and Mr. Smith uses this barn as...

Why You Should Never Resist Arrest

Resisting arrest is very common and occurs any time a person interferes with or obstructs an officer’s attempt to make a legal arrest. In Illinois, it is usually charged as a misdemeanor. However, if there is an injury to the arresting officer, the offense rises to a felony. The charge of resisting arrest is defined at 720 ILCS 5/31-1:1 “A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if they knowingly resist or obstruct the performance by a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his or her official capacity.” While the most classic examples of resisting arrest are fleeing from the scene or engaging the arresting officer physically, the statute is worded broadly and encompasses a wide variety of behaviors. For example, you can be arrested simply for refusing to put your hands behind your back, refusing to lay on the ground, refusing to put your hands on the squad car, or refusing to clear the scene of a crime when ordered to do so. Resisting arrest is also a difficult charge to escape; even if the underlying charge against the defendant is dropped, resisting arrest is an independent charge and will remain. Thus, it is not a defense to resisting arrest that the underlying charge was dismissed. Further, a conviction for resisting arrest can even lengthen a person’s sentence if they are ever convicted of a future offense. Possible punishment for resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeanor in Illinois and is punishable by up to one year in prison and up to a $2,500 fine. If the police officer is injured during the incident,...