We’ve Won Millions for Clients in Defective RV Cases
Langdon & Emison has a proven track record of success in RV cases involving defects in the fuel and propane systems, structural problems and other safety defects. Below are some examples of the RV cases we’ve successfully resolved.
$5 million settlement, Confidential RV Case
A common fuel system defect in RVs pertains to the location of the fuel filler pipe. In many RVs, the fuel filler pipe is routed without protection through the driver compartment. In fact, if you remove an RV’s cup holders, often you will see the fuel filler pipe. RVs are designed and manufactured with the fuel filler pipe directly underneath the driver and within the frontal crush zone of the vehicle, leaving the fuel filler pipe completely exposed and creating a serious risk of post-collision fire.
Confidential RV Explosion Case
In one case involving a woman who was killed in an RV propane explosion, our fire cause and origin expert identified a kinked or crimped propane line and small hole that permitted propane gas to escape into the RV. After finding the source of the explosion, we had to identify why the crimp and hole were created and not remedied during the manufacturing process.
After inspecting the manufacturing plant and deposing several employees, we learned that there were no blueprints for workers to follow when assembling the final-stage RV. Workers building the RVs were paid bonuses for the quantity of vehicles produced, while the quality of work went uninspected. No one at the final-stage manufacturer even attempted an evaluation to prevent injuries or evaluate the RV’s safety.
Carbon Monoxide Defect Case
We represented the survivors of an entire family killed by carbon monoxide in a camping trailer. The family was involved in local auto racing and purchased a combination trailer that both carried the racecar and provided living quarters while at the track. In addition to proving the carbon monoxide defect, we also had to prove that the trailer was not merely a vehicle hauler but also intended to be a camper.
The trailer manufacturer argued that carbon monoxide protections were not required even though the trailer included sleeping and eating quarters. We were able to prove that the trailer was intended for use as a camper and the manufacturer failed to seal out sources of carbon monoxide and provide adequate carbon monoxide warning systems.
