A group of lawyers representing those injured or killed by Toyota cars are filing a nation-wide class action lawsuit against the world’s largest automaker. This products liability lawsuit concerns a document that says Toyota new about the unexpected acceleration of its Camry vehicles as early as 2002.

The document also counters the claim by Toyota that the unexpected acceleration was caused by faulty floor mats or sticky gas pedals. According to the Toyota technical service bulletin, dealerships were notified in 2002 about a problem with the Engine Control Module.

Toyota has continued to deny this was the problem. If this were to be the problem, the estimated cost of repair would be around $500 per vehicle, putting the total costs into the billions of dollars. Another reason that Toyota has pointed towards in the rapid acceleration is “driver error”.

If Toyota is found responsible in a court of law, then the costs could also be in the billions of dollars. The attorney representing the case will appear in San Diego later this week and make an appeal with the courts to combine the 88 individual lawsuits into one class action suit.

In Greenwich, Connecticut, parents of a 6-year-old boy have filed a lawsuit against the pool manufacturer, Shoreline Pools and the city in regard to a fatal drowning. According to the lawsuit, the boy was trapped by the water intake at the deep end of the pool and could not set himself free, nor the father who tried to free his son.

The child was eventually freed when the mother raced to cut power to the entire facility. The parents tried CPR but were unsuccessful in reviving their child. Over the past 20 years there have been 48 reported fatalities from swimming pool drain entrapments.

A lawsuit against Mattel was filed this week in Los Angeles Superior Court. The Mattel class action lawsuit seeks monetary damages that will go towards testing children for lead poisoning because of the paint used on the toy products.

The massive Mattel recall involved toys made in China that were manufactured with lead paint and also toys that had small magnets that could fall off and choke small children. The Mattel lawsuit is the first of its kind, but more litigation of the same nature will likely follow.

Plaintiffs in the U. S. and Canada have launched pet food lawsuits against Menu Foods Corporation in product liability claims. The tainted pet food, sold under 92 different brand names including Iams has led to the deaths of 14 pets to date. Menu Foods is recalling 60 million cans and packets of the tainted pet food in one of the largest product recalls ever.

Menu foods “cuts-and-gravy” style food is sold at outlets such as Wal-Mart, PetSmart and Safeway and was pulled off the shelves on March 6, 2007. A Chicago woman, Dawn Majerczyk is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in the U. S. who filed suit after losing her cat, Phoenix to the tainted food.

A Canadian woman, Amanda Whiting has also filed a pet food lawsuit in the Canadian courts since her kitten has been diagnosed with kidney failure from eating the pet food. Toronto law firm Himelfarb Proszanski LLP is investigating the possibility of bringing forward a class action lawsuit in this case as well.

In Missouri, a Jackson County jury awarded plaintiffs in a class action suit $17 million in damages against American Family Mutual Insurance Company for using aftermarket (non-OEM) parts in their vehicles. In a case that combines both elements of products liability and fraud, the suit alleged that the aftermarket crash parts that were used were of substandard quality and constituted a safety hazard. The suit also alleged their was a failure to disclose the extent that non-OEM parts were being used.

In 2005, insurance giant St. Farm Mutual faced a similar and larger lawsuit tabbed at $2 billion for using inferior aftermarket parts and failing to disclose the extend to which these parts were being used. The suit also alleged that it was St. Farm’s internal policy to use non-OEM parts on identified groups of people who most likely would not challenge the use of such parts or the insurance company’s practices in court.