attorney who won against bridgestone

2015: Truck Driver Files Lawsuit against Bridgestone after Fatal Crash

In 2015, a truck driver filed a lawsuit in Wyoming after he claimed that Bridgestone had sold him a tire that was defective at the time of purchase. Another vehicle was destroyed in the crash ending the lives of three people including a child.

Understanding Product Liability Lawsuits

Product liability lawsuits like the one described above come in three different kinds. Those are:

Contact a Tire Accident Attorney Today

If you’ve been injured in an accident caused by a defective tire or lost someone you love to a tire-related accident, give the tire defect attorneys at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert a call or contact us online. We have recovered millions of dollars in product liability lawsuits for our clients and we can do the same for you.

Gary Eto files one of the First Cases in California against Firestone and Ford for Tire Defects and Rollover Defects arising out of the Infamous Recall of August 8, 2000

On October 31,1999 five college students attending The University of Southern California were returning to campus on Interstate 5, having traveled up north to watch the USC – CAL (Berkeley) football game. While driving south on I-5, the left rear Firestone tire on the Ford Explorer separated, causing the Explorer to fishtail.

Get a FREE No-Obligation Consultation

We have answers to your legal questions wherever you may live. Contact us today to get a FREE Case Review from our Legal Firm.

What is the foundation of Bridgestone's complaint?

At the foundation of Bridgestone’s complaint is the assertion that IBM did not apply talent that was consistent with contractual obligations and that IBM was fraudulent in its reports regarding the ongoing status of the program. Bridgestone claims that with sufficient information regarding the situation, different decisions would have been taken ...

When did Bridgestone go live?

Bridgestone went live with the solution in January of 2012, $30M over budget and five months later than planned. In the lawsuit that was filed , Bridgestone alleged that the implementation created a major disruption to its ability to serve customers and threw its logistics and supply chain operations into chaos.

Did Bridgestone and IBM file a motion to drop their lawsuits against each other?

Just one week before jury selection was slated to begin, Bridgestone and IBM filed a motion to drop their lawsuits against each other with prejudice, meaning that the suit can never be raised again. Court documents indicate that each firm agreed to pay their own attorney fees. It was not clear from the filing if any specific monetary concessions were made by either firm.

Who is the plaintiff in Bridgestone?

The plaintiff, a tire sales manager who’s worked at various Bridgestone locations since September 2018, alleges the defendants have unlawfully modified employees’ time records, understated their hours worked and miscalculated overtime wages, amounting to a failure to pay proper wages in accordance with federal and Pennsylvania labor laws.

What is the Bridgestone lawsuit?

The lawsuit goes on to allege Bridgestone’s timekeeping system undercounted the amount of time worked with a feature that systematically delayed employees’ start times “by multiple minutes” for each shift. Notably, the system appears to have accurately tracked the punch-out times for each shift yet was designed to “shave” down workers’ hours at the front end of their shifts in favor of the defendants, the case says.

Why did Bridgestone change time records?

Bridgestone did so in order to reduce compensable work time and avoid paying time-and-a-half overtime wages, according to the case.

Who is the Lyon Firm?

The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a defective product or recalled product to obtain just compensation under the law .

What is confidential settlement in Ohio?

(Hamilton County, Ohio): Confidential Settlement. Lead Counsel in a case that involved secondary lead exposure to two children. Their father worked at a local recycling plant that routinely recycled computer equipment. The company violated numerous OSHA regulations related to providing safety equipment and clothing to prevent lead particles from being transferred home. As a result, the Plaintiffs father transferred lead dust to his children who then suffered lead poisoning. The case was covered extensively by the Cincinnati news media and referenced in peer-reviewed medical literature. The settlement will provide educational needs to the children who suffered neurological injuries due the exposure.