Product Liability Law Blog

The death of freestyle skier Sarah Burke after sustaining a traumatic brain injury during a training accident is once again raising questions about the dangers that can arise when someone is moving swiftly through snow or ice and is involved in an accident. Granted, while freestyle skiing tends is a lot more high-risk than other sports, there are dangers involved in regular skiing, ice hockey, speed skating, sledding, snowboarding, and tobogganing. The question is, how much does protective gear and clothing actually protect people from catastrophic injuries?

Discovery.com reports that some studies show that while boots, helmets, bindings, and other safety gear do decrease the risk of serious injuries, these products have their limits. There are even products, such as the wrist guards used by snowboarders, that don't offer any actual benefits. A person that is wearing them may even be worse off in certain accidents.

Also, despite the fact that manufacturers are continuing to develop new protective gear, the rate of snow sport deaths hasn't declined in 40 years. Granted, skiiers that don't use helmets are more likely to die from a head injury, but there are also helmet users that are dying from trauma sustained by the body as a result of high-speed impact during a fall or from colliding into a tree. Also, a helmet doesn't provide protection from spinal cord injuries.

In a study published in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics last week, simulated tobogganing crash tests done on helmets to test for side and front impacts at varying meters/second found that bicycle helmets offered the most protection at the highest velocity. Ice hockey helmets were best able to offer protection at lower velocities. Alpine helmets provided the worst protection of all three helmet types during both high and low impacts. However, at over impacts of 4 meters/second, all helmets exhibited damage to the inner liner and cracks.

It is important that all safety equipment warn of any risks involved when using a product. Manufacturers must also make sure not to market safety gear to make it appear as if it provides more protection than what is actually does. Safety equipment and clothing should also be free of defects that could cause it to malfunction and/or not provide the protection it is supposed to give the wearer.

Our products liability lawyers represent both children and clients that have sustained traumatic brain injuries in incidents involving defective products and other catastrophic accidents. Contact The Gilbert Law Group today to schedule your free case evaluation.

Helmets vary in offering protection for winter sports and play, Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2012

Sarah Burke, Freestyle Skier, Dies From Injuries in Training, New York Times, January 19, 2012

Sarah Burke's Death: Can Gear Keep Up with Skiers?, DiscoveryNews, January 13, 2012

Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics

More Blog Posts:
Head Injury Risk Prompts Triple Eight Distribution to Recall 30,400 Bicycle Helmets for Kids, Product Liability Law Blog, January 6, 2012

Do Toning Shoes Cause Foot Injuries?, Product Liability Law Blog, June 8, 2011

Defective Clothing Can Cause Serious Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, June 19, 2008

Continue reading "Will Your Helmet Prevent a Traumatic Brain Injury During a Winter Accident?" »

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has sent a letter to distributors, manufacturers, retailers, and importers emphasizing the importance of them abiding by Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Children's sleepwear is defined by the CPSC as apparel ranging from size 0 to 14 that is supposed to be worn mostly for sleeping or during sleep-related activities. (Infant garments, which are for kids younger than 10 months, underwear, diapers and certain clothing that are tight-fitting do not fall under the children's sleepwear category.)The kind of fabric that the clothing is made of, the way the sleepwear is distributed and promoted, and the likelihood of it being bought for and used by kids are also key factors in determining whether a piece of clothing would be considered kids' sleepwear. For the Commission, children's loungewear is clothing used mainly for sleep-related activities.

The sleepwear standards regarding flammability were established so that kids' clothing doesn't ignite when exposed to candles, lighters, matches, stoves, ranges, fireplaces, and space heaters. Such unfortunate accidents have been known to happen to children wearing flammable loungewear/sleepwear (usually) right before bedtime or in the morning after breakfast. Unfortunately, despite the existing regulations, there are clothes that pose a fire hazard risk yet still end up in the marketplace.

When clothing is made of material that is more likely than other fabrics to catch fire, the person wearing the clothes can end up sustaining serious burn injuries, especially as the flames are more likely to spread quickly through flammable material. Also, the material that the clothing is made from can melt into the person's skin, exacerbating the burns even further.

Disfigurement, permanent scarring, infection, and death may result from wearing flammable clothing that catches fire. A person lucky enough to survive such an accident may have to undergo serious, painful surgeries, skin grafts, and other procedures. They also may sustain emotional and psychological scars that can impair a person's ability to live a normal life.

Factors that can impact how fast clothing can ignite include:

• The type of material and fibers that the clothing is made from
• The design of the clothing. For example, longer and looser the clothing is the greater the risk of it brushing against any nearby flames.

Our clothing defects lawyers are familiar with the severe burns that can result from flammable clothing. We represent children and adults who were seriously injured because of defective and dangerous products.

CPSC Reinforces Children's Sleepwear and Loungewear Enforcement Policy to Apparel Industry Agency standards designed to prevent burn injuries to children, CPSC, December 23, 2011

Read more about the CPSC's sleepwear standards (PDF)

Read the CPSC's letter (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Pro Football Players Sue Helmet Maker Riddell and NFL for Traumatic Brain Injuries and Products Liability, Product Liability Law Blog, August 31, 2011

CPSC Says Certain Kids' Outerwear with Drawstrings Pose Strangulation, Entrapment and Death Hazard to Kids, Product Liability Law Blog, July 18, 2011

Defective Clothing Can Cause Serious Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, July 19, 2008

Continue reading "Clothing Defects: Apparel Industry Must Follow Standards for Children's Loungewear and Sleepwear, Says CPSC" »

UC Irvine researchers from its otolaryngology department are saying that the sounds coming from toys that make the loudest noises have been known to hit decibel levels similar to sounds made by a subway train or a chainsaw. 10 toys that are popular among kids were tested for loudness.

The toys' sound levels were measured while the objects were placed next to a speaker and from 12 inches away (the typical length from a toddler's head to his/her hand.) Researchers say that these two distances are representative of the way that young children handle such toys--at arm's length and held up to their ear. Per the study, some toys, including the Road Rippers, Tonka Mighty Motorized Fire Engine, and T-Pain Mic hit 100 decibels or higher when placed next to a speaker. At a 12-inch distance, the same toys reached decibels in the mid- to upper-60's, which the American Academy of Otolaryngology reports is the level of noise a car might emit for someone observing the vehicle at a close distance. Noise/Sounds from the following toys when placed near a speaker hit the 90 decibels and higher range:

• Sesame Street Let's Rock Elmo
• VTech Princes Magical Learning Wand
• Toy Story Buzz Lightyear Cosmic Blaster
• Marvel Super Shield Captain America

Considering that hearing loss can result from noise louder than 85 decibels, and, per study director Dr. Hamid R. Djalilian, young children are likely to place a toy emitting noise next to their ears to confirm the source of the sound, are these toys safe for use? If you believe that your child suffered hearing loss or any other injury as a result of a toy or another product, you should speak with a products liability lawyer immediately to find out whether you have a child injury case on your hands.

Djalilian said that most toys that make noise, if used properly, shouldn't pose any danger to kids. However, the researchers are recommending that a speaker on any toy should be located on its bottom side. They are also suggesting that buyers test toys that emit noises to make sure they aren't too loud before purchasing them.

According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, toys that make noises so loud that they can potentially cause hearing damage include certain cap guns, toy vehicles with sirens or horns, walkie-talkies, talking dolls, toys with cranks, musical instruments, and squeaky rubber toys. Improper use of noisy toys can also up the risk of hearing loss.

It is important that toymakers warn of the risk of potential hearing loss posed by any toy and include instructions for safe and proper use. Hearing loss not only impairs a child's ability to hear and experience the world, but also it may impede speech development, language development, learning, communication, social development, and self-esteem. The repercussions of hearing loss during childhood can seriously impact adulthood.

Study: Improper Use of Noisy Toys May Lead to Hearing Loss for Children, Fox News, December 5, 2007

Study: Toys can be too loud, Daily Pilot, December 22, 2011

Effects of Hearing Loss on Development, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

More Blog Posts:
Prevent Child Injuries This Holiday Season By Avoiding Dangerous and Defective Toys, Product Liability Law Blog, November 23, 2011

Swallowing High-Powered Magnets Can Be Deadly for Kids, Warns CPSC, Product Liability Law Blog, November 6, 2011

Little Tikes Recalls Another 1.7 Million Toy Workshop and Tool Sets Over Choking Hazard, Product Liability Law Blog, October 6, 2011

Continue reading "Can Loud Toys Impair Children's Hearing?" »

Importer Triple Eight Distribution risk is recalling approximately 30,400 bicycle helmets for youth and kids over concerns that they may not protect riders from head injuries during fall accidents. Testing of the helmets revealed that they are not in compliance with Consumer Product Safety Commission Standards.

Considering that a helmet and other safety gear are the only protections that a bicyclist would have during a traffic accident, it is important that it is properly constructed and designed to provide the needed before between the cyclist and the road or a vehicle during impact. Kids should stop using the helmet right away and get in touch with Triple Eight to ask for your money back.

According to statistics on the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute's Web site:
• Of the 630 bicyclists that died in the US in 2009, 74 of them were under the age of 15
• Young bicyclists involved in a traffic crash had a greater chance than adult riders of dying from a head injury
• 75% of bicycle deaths in 2000 involved collisions with motor vehicles
• Also that year, head injuries were a factor in 62.6% of bicycle accident deaths.

At The Gilbert Law Group, we have child injury lawyers who are knowledgeable in the area of catastrophic injury that can help families recover compensation from the manufacturers, retailers, and distributors of dangerous and defective products. Ask to speak with one of our products liability lawyers today.

Unfortunately, traffic crashes are the leading cause of head injuries. A seemingly minor bump can later prove to be something much more serious and permanent.

Symptoms of a possible traumatic brain injury:
• Sudden, uncontrollable drowsiness
• A stiff neck
• Loss of consciousness
• Pounding headache
• Throwing up
• Convulsions
• Sudden inability to hear properly
• Skull fracture
• Changes to your pupils
• Vision problems
• Scalp injury
• Head swelling
• Facial bruising
• Loss of ability to move legs or arms
• Decreased blood pressure
• Slurring your speech
• Confusion
• Disorientation

According to KidsHealth.org, approximately 500,000 kids are seriously injured in US bicycle accidents. Most of these injuries could have been prevented if the children had worn helmets.

It is important that a helmet meet either Consumer Product Safety Commission standards or the ones set by the nonprofit group Snell Memorial Foundation. The helmet should also be well-ventilated, correctly fit your child, and is of a color (fluorescent or bright) that can make it easy for other motorists and bicyclists to see. Once a helmet has been involved in an impact collision, it is a good idea to replace it right away because they can lose their ability to absorb shock.

Bicycle Helmets Recalled by Triple Eight Distribution Due to Risk of Head Injury, The Sacramento Bee, January 6, 2012

Bicycle Helmets Recalled by Triple Eight Distribution Due to Risk of Head Injury, CPSC, January 6, 2012

Bike Safety, KidsHealth

Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute

More Blog Posts:
Choking Hazard Prompts Build-A-Bear to Recall Over 280,000 Teddy Bears, Product Liability Law Blog, December 28, 2011

Prevent Child Injuries This Holiday Season By Avoiding Dangerous and Defective Toys,
Product Liability Law Blog, November 29, 2011

Michigan Products Liability Lawsuit Seeks Wrongful Death Damages Against Nap Nanny Maker, Product Liability Law Blog, November 19, 2011

Continue reading "Head Injury Risk Prompts Triple Eight Distribution to Recall 30,400 Bicycle Helmets for Kids " »

Honda has just recalled its 2001 Honda Civic, as part of an expansion of an earlier recall involving defective driver's side air bags. This 10-year-old model is the same one that college student Kristy Williams was in on April 2010 when while stopped at a traffic light the vehicle's frontal air bags suddenly deployed, sending razor sharp metal pieces into the left side of her neck as the driver's side air bag exploded.

Williams' carotid artery was cut and she began losing a great deal of blood. She also broke her left arm. She then spent two weeks in the ICU where she suffered from seizures and a heart attack while undergoing multiple surgeries.

Williams' Georgia auto products liability attorney has said that Honda should have recalled the 2001 Honda Civic sooner and that this could have prevented the college student from getting hurt. Honda has settled Williams' Georgia air bag defect lawsuit for an undisclosed amount. However, Williams has been left with a six-inch scar on her neck and because of her injury she will no longer be able to become a police officer.

Honda announced its expanded recall earlier this month--its fifth one over the same defect since 2008. 20 car accidents and 2 deaths related to this air bag safety issue have been reported in the US since 2009.

The automaker explained that should the driver's side air bag go off with too much force, its metal inflator casing could rupture. Seeing as the casing holds an explosive propellant, the metal from the casing could turn into shrapnel pieces and fly into the driver.

The autos named in this month's Honda air bag defect recall include the:
• Honda Civic ('01,'02,'03 models)
• Acura 3.2 CL ('03 model)
• Honda Accord (certain '01 and '02 models)
• Acura 3.2 TL ('02 and '03 models)
• Honda Odyssey ("01, '02, '03 models)
• Honda CR-V ('02 and '03 models)

Air bags are supposed to be designed to protect passengers, not cause them serious injury. For an air bag to deploy at the wrong time and without warning can prove extremely catastrophic and even fatal.

Serious air bag injuries can include traumatic brain injury, neck injuries, chest injuries, impact injuries, shrapnel injuries, hearing loss, blindness, thoracic trauma, burn injuries, lacerations, arm fractures, leg fractures, and abrasions.

How Honda's faulty air bags maimed a Georgia student, USA Today, December 20, 2011

Honda Recalls 304,000 Cars Globally Over Air Bag Concerns, ABC News, December 2, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Air Bag Defect Prompts Honda to Recall another 273,000 Autos, Product Liability Law Blog, November 30, 2011

Serious Airbag Defect Leads Honda to Recall 440,000 More Civics, Accords, and Acura TL's, Product Liability Law Blog, July 31, 2009

Texas Auto Products Liability: Air Bag Defect Lawsuit Seeks Damages from GM, Product Liability Law Blog, May 10, 2011

Continue reading "Recently Recalled Honda Civic Blamed in Georgia Air Bag Defect Lawsuit " »

Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc. and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission have announced the voluntary recall of 284,000 Colorful Hearts Teddy Bears. The recall is over concerns that the stuffed doll's eyes might come lose and fall off, creating a potential choking hazard. To date, there have been no reports of related injuries.

The announcement comes shortly after the CPSC fined Build-A-Bear $600,000 over a defective toy beach chair. The fine settles claims that the company allegedly knew that the toys were dangerous long before notifying the CPSC about the product defect.

The CPSC claims that Build-A-Bear started getting reports as early as July 2007 that the toy chairs, which are accessories for their stuffed animals, could cause laceration, pinching, and fingertip amputation injuries in the event that the finger or another part of the body were to get caught in the middle of the wood frame while it was being folded. Build-A-Bear finally reported the defect in March 2009. Prior to that, however, in October 2008 the company stopped selling the chairs and told stores to give the product back to the storage warehouse.

Build-A-Bear says that with over 200,000 toy chairs sold between 2001 and 2008, it had received 10 injury complaints.

Companies must report a product defect that poses a substantial injury risk immediately. The CPSC has taken a tough stance against companies that fail to notify it about any products that pose a serious injury risk. In 2005, Graco Children's Products Inc. was fined $4 million for not notifying the government in a timely manner about over 12 million products that were dangerous to kids.

Notifying the government about a defective product makes it easier for the public to become aware that a product may be dangerous. This may prevent serious injuries from happening.

Build-A-Bear Workshop to pay $600,000 fine in defective toy chair case, Business Insurance, December 22, 2011

Build-A-Bear Recalls Colorful Hearts Teddy Bears Due to Choking Hazard, CPSC, December 23, 2011

Build a Bear

More Blog Posts:
Registering Your Kid's Products Can Help You Find Out About Dangerous Defects, Product Liability Law Blog, December 12, 2011

Prevent Child Injuries This Holiday Season By Avoiding Dangerous and Defective Toys, Product Liability Law Blog, November 23, 2011

Little Tikes Recalls Another 1.7 Million Toy Workshop and Tool Sets Over Choking Hazard, Product Liability Law Blog, October 6, 2011

Continue reading "Choking Hazard Prompts Build-A-Bear to Recall Over 280,000 Teddy Bears" »

According to officials, the government has recovered $2.8 billion in false claims cases with the assistance of whistleblowers. This monetary amount is a yearly record high.

During fiscal year 2011, 636 qui tam lawsuits filed by whistleblowers. (In past years, about 300-400 complaints were submitted annually.) The Justice Department secured over $3 billion in judgments and settlements in civil fraud cases under the False Claims Act. $2.4 billion was related to fraud against federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, federal Employees Health Benefits, TRICARE, and Veterans Administration health programs.

Since 1986, when the False Claims Act was amended to provide stronger incentives for whistleblowers to come forward, there have been over 7,800 Qui Tam complaints filed. According Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Tony West, 28% of the recoveries obtained from these occurred after Barack Obama became president.

The Obama Administration has made combating health care fraud a major priority. With the establishment of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), the government has used the False Claims Act to get back over $6.6 in federal health care dollars in the last two years.

This past fiscal year, enforcement actions against members of the pharmaceutical industry resulted in the largest recoveries, with almost $2.2 billion in civil claims that were gotten back. $421 million was recovered from state Medicaid Fraud cases and $1.76 billion was for federal recoveries. Eight drug companies paid $900 million over allegations that they upped their profits through unlawful pricing. GlaxoSmithKline PLC paid $750 million to settle civil and criminal charges that it purposely turned in, or caused to be submitted, false claims for adulterate drugs and medications that weren't in line with Food and Drug Administration specifications.

At the Gilbert Law Group, we know how much courage it takes to step forward and report fraudulent activity by your employers or others with whom you have an affiliation. This is one of the many reasons why you should seek experienced legal counsel that understands what is entailed in filing a whistleblower lawsuit.

Remember that it is key that you keep the information you have about the fraudulent activity confidential. Even limited public disclosure of what you know can bar you from being able to file your whistleblower claim.

Per the False Claims Act's whistleblower provisions, you may be entitled to a percentage of whatever the government recovers because of the information that you provided.

Justice Department Recovers $3 Billion in False Claims Act Cases in Fiscal Year 2011, Justice.gov, December 19, 2011

What is the False Claims Act & Why is it Important?, The False Claims Act Legal Center

More Blog Posts:
Secret Whistleblower Played Key Role in Bank of New York Mellon Investigation, Product Liability Law Blog, October 13, 2011

Secret Whistleblower Played Key Role in Bank of New York Mellon Investigation, Product Liability Law Blog, October 31, 2011

Continue reading "Whistleblower Cases Result In Record $2.8B Recovery During Fiscal Year 2011" »

Roche has agreed to pay $20M to settle a whistleblower complaint filed by an ex-manager who claimed that the drug Rituxan was marketed off-label and that Medicaid and Medicare ended up making payments for the immunosupressant that were unnecessary because of Roche is a unit of Genentech. Per the Pennsylvania whistleblower lawsuit, which was filed by former sales development senior manager John Underwood, Genentech encouraged doctors and medical providers to bill government reimbursement programs for 'off-label' uses of the drug and make it appear that their recommendation were arrived at independently.

During the period of time cited by Underwood (between 2000 and 2002), the Food and Drug Administration approved Rituxan to treat refractory/relapsed low-grade non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other types of non-Hodgkins lymphoma ( rheumatoid arthritis, lymphocytic leukemia, and follicular lymphoma have since been added to the drug's label.) However, Underwood says that Genentech encouraged that Rituxan be used to treat a number of conditions that were off-label, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and rheumatoid arthritis.

Underwood also accused the drug maker of hiring doctors to "independently" speak about Rituxan and promote these off-label purposes. The physicians were paid consulting fees that were actually kickbacks and it was their job to get sales reps to also push the drug's off-label uses. Many doctors were invited to educational seminars at "luxurious" sites, and physicians were retained to conduct workshops to teach salespersons "selling skills." Sales reps also were allegedly offered financial incentives.

Filing a whistleblower lawsuit allows a US citizen to help expose fraud involving other(s) submitting a false claim to get the government to pay. Under the False Claims Act, a person who files a Qui Tam/whistleblower complaint may be eligible to receive up to 30% of whatever is recovered.

Underwood's share of the $20 million settlement is $5.7 million. Genentech has also agreed to pay for Underwood's legal fees and expenses. However, the drug manufacturer is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing by settling.

As a potential whistleblower it is important you keep the information you know that exposes fraud against the government private and that you talk to an experience whistleblower law firm immediately. Also, you should know that False Claims Act protects whistleblowers that come forward from retaliation.This means that if you were fired or placed on leave because you blew the whistle, you may be entitled to twice the amount of wages that you ended up losing.

Genentech settles Rituxan whistleblower suit for $20M, BizJournals, December 2, 2011

Roche Pays $20M To Settle Whistleblower Lawsuit, Pharmalot, December 2, 2011

Rituxan

Roche

Federal False Claims Act


More Blog Posts:
Secret Whistleblower Played Key Role in Bank of New York Mellon Investigation, Product Liability Law Blog, October 31, 2011

Texas Auto Products Liability Lawsuit Seek Damages from Chrysler Over Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Involving Durango Crashing into Townhome, Product Liability Law Blog, October 30, 2011

Toys 'R' Us Ordered to Pay $20.6M Products Liability Lawsuit in Inflatable Pool Slide Death, Product Liability Law Blog, October 26, 2011

Continue reading "Roche Settles Whistleblower Lawsuit for $20M" »

Under federal law, the manufacturers of toddler and infant products that are durable are supposed to include a pre-stamped postcard with each item. This gives parents the option to register the product via mail or online, which gives the product maker the ability to provide immediate notification in the event of a recall over a dangerous defect. Considering that millions of children's products are recalled each year, this mandatory registration system would seem like a good idea except that, according to a Consumer Federation of America survey, 61% of parents with kids younger than 12 didn't even know that this new notification system existed.

The law is called the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act and it is named after a 16-month old baby who died in his sleep in a child strangulation accident that occurred because the Playskool Trav'l Lite portable crib he was in collapsed. Although the portable crib was recalled five years before Keysar was born, no one notified the daycare center where the crib was located about the news. The crib had two collapsible rails that posed a strangulation hazard in the event that the infant sleeper to collapse while the baby was in it.

Keysar is not the only infant to die in one of these cribs. His parents filed a crib defect lawsuit against Kolcraft/Playskool-Hasbro. Their products liability complaint seeking wrongful death was settled for $3 million.

At the Gilbert Law Group, PC, our child injury lawyers are committed to helping kids and their families recover products liability compensation from manufacturers whose products caused serious personal injury or death.

It is a manufacturer's job to make sure that a product is free of harmful defects that could hurt users. Unfortunately, there are some companies that fail to fulfill this duty, which means that as parents and guardians, we must be extra vigilant in looking out for potential defects or hazards and take on the task of protecting our kids. Registering a product is one way to keep abreast of potential safety issues. You can also check the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Web site, which publishes a list of recalled products. It also is a good idea to check a product for potential safety hazards, such as easy to swallow parts, long drawstrings, sharp or protruding parts, small magnet pieces, and other dangers.

Registering new products could be a life saver, ABC Local, December 14, 2011

Are recalls reaching the right people?, Consumer Reports, January 4, 2011

Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act

More Blog Posts:
Prevent Child Injuries This Holiday Season By Avoiding Dangerous and Defective Toys, Product Liability Law Blog, November 23, 2011

Michigan Products Liability Lawsuit Seeks Wrongful Death Damages Against Nap Nanny Maker, Product Liability Law Blog, November 19, 2011

22,000 Dream on Me Drop-Side Cribs Recalled Because They Pose Laceration, Entrapment, Suffocation, and Fall Hazards, Product Liability Law Blog, May 24, 2011

Continue reading "Registering Your Kid's Products Can Help You Find Out About Dangerous Defects" »

Two automakers have announced auto recalls over unrelated brake problems. Honda Motor Corp. is recalling about 126,000 GL-1800 motorcycles (2001 and 2012 models) while Subaru of America is recalling approximately 32,000 vehicles (2012 models of the Outback, Legacy, and Impreza). So far, no related injuries or traffic crashes have been reported. However, if you or someone you loved was injured in a collision involving any of these vehicles and you believe that faulty brakes may have played a role, please contact our auto defect law firm immediately.

The Honda recall is over a safety issue involving the secondary brake master cylinder, which may cause brake dragging. If this happens, a motorcycle accident may happen.

The car manufacturer has received 26 complaints over this safety issue, including 2 involving motorcycle fires. Honda says that only 4% of the vehicles that have been recalled are carrying the defective brake part.

This recall comes on the heels of Honda's one last week over 273,000 vehicles and a side air bag defect that could cause the safety device to deploy too forcefully during an accident. Last week's recall is the fifth one the automaker has announced over this safety issue, which now has affected nearly 2 million autos.

Meantime, Subaru has received 112 reports of problems involving a faulty brake master cylinder that could cause the brake pedal to go further than expected. If this were to happen, the driver might not be able to gauge exactly how much pressure he/she needs to apply to quickly stop the vehicle. The automaker says that only about 3,000 of the vehicles that contain the defective part were sold, while the rest are still headed for or are at dealer lots.

For both recalls, customers can take their Honda motorcycles and Subaru cars to a dealer where they will inspect the vehicles and replace any defective parts.

In other auto recall news, a power-steering problem has prompted Nissan to recall 7,365 Rogue compact crossovers (2011 model). This safety issue involves a circuit board that may have been improperly installed on the electric power-steering assist control unit. If the circuit board fails and the assist feature stops working, the driver may have to apply more force to steer the motor vehicle, which can increase the risk of a collision.

Unfortunately, not all auto defects end up as part of a recall. Or, if they do, it may not be until after a deadly crash has already happened. If you or your loved one was injured in a car collision because an automaker made an unsafe vehicle, there may be grounds for auto products liability or wrongful death damages. There may also may be other liable parties, such as the dealer that sold you the vehicle or a maintenance repair shop that failed to properly repair the auto.

You should retain the services of a law firm that has a thorough understanding of auto products liability. Going after a car manufacturer can be tough, and you want your auto defect lawyers to have the skills, resources, and knowledge to do the job right.

Subaru, Honda, recall vehicles due to brake issues, CBS News, December 5, 2011

2011 Nissan Rogue recalled for power-steering issue, Newsday, December 5, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Air Bag Defect Prompts Honda to Recall another 273,000 Autos, Product Liability Law Blog, November 30, 2011

Honda Expands Air Bag Recall with Another 833,000 Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, May 3, 2011

Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States, Product Liability Law Blog, March 4, 2011

In its fifth recall over the same auto defect since 2008, Honda is recalling another 273,00 motor vehicles because of a faulty air-bag deployment system. This latest announcement ups the number of autos affected to almost 2 million.

The safety issue involves the driver's side air bag, which could deploy in too forceful a manner during a crash. If this were to happen, the metal inflator casing, which holds explosive propellant, might rupture, causing pieces of shrapnel to burst forth to potentially kill the driver. Honda also will inspect another 603,000 motor vehicles to check whether defective parts were used to fix autos that had been involved in traffic crashes.

Two deaths and 18 injuries have been linked to this air bag safety issue. The automaker says it decided to announce another recall after finding out about yet another driver who had gotten hurt. Honda is calling this safety defect a "serious matter."

Air Bag Defects
Our air bag defect lawyers are familiar with the serious injuries that can result because this safety device malfunctioned. Air bags are there to protect vehicle occupants. They are supposed to deploy during serious crashes. When an airbag doesn't go off upon impact, this can cause serious injury to the victim, who may end up hitting the steering wheel or crashing through the windshield. If the airbag deploys at the wrong angle or too slowly this too can cause serious injuries. An air bag that goes off when it isn't supposed to, such as while the driver is on a freeway and hasn't been involved in the crash, can also prove dangerous. The driver, at this point, could end up involved in a traffic crash because he or she cannot see the road and may have a hard time maneuvering the vehicle with the air bag fully inflated in front of the steering wheeling or pushing against him/her from the side of the vehicle.

Car manufacturers know how important proper deployment of an air bag is to saving people's lives and it is their job to make sure that this safety device is free from any defects that could cause serious injuries or wrongful death. You should retain the serves of a personal injury law firm that that is experienced with dealing with auto products liability cases involving air bag defects.

Our air bag defect law firm is not afraid to pursue large auto manufacturers for damages on our clients' behalf. There is no reason why you need to foot your medical expenses and other related costs because an automaker was negligent.

Honda Adds 273,000 Vehicles to Long-Running Air Bag Recall, NY Times, December 2, 2011

More Hondas, Acuras to be recalled over deadly air bag problem, Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Texas Auto Products Liability: Air Bag Defect Lawsuit Seeks Damages from GM, Product Liability Law Blog, May 10, 2011

Honda Expands Air Bag Recall with Another 833,000 Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, May 3, 2011

Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States, Product Liability Law Blog, March 4, 2011

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened a formal probe into whether General Motors's Chevy Volts' batteries are at risk of catching fire after they are involved in a serious car crash. While GM has stated that its vehicle is not a fire hazard, the NHTSA remains committed to continuing its safety defect investigation until it reaches its own conclusions.

Safety officials began to worry about a possible fire risk after a Volt that was parked in a test facility caught fire, causing damage to other parked autos. That battery had been punctured and its coolant line ruptured during a side-impact collision test in May.

In the last several days, one of the Volt battery packs that was under observation following a crash test did catch fire, while another one that was also crash-tested let out sparks and smoke. Another battery that underwent a crash test several months ago also had burst into flames. (GM claims NHTSA failing to drain one of the batteries that caught fire of energy after crash-testing it, which is a step the automaker would have taken.)

The NHTSA says there have been no Volt-related fires in roadway crashes reported thus far. The Volt is one of 8,000 cars that are plug-in electric cars.

While testing of the Volt hasn't raised any red flags about other electric autos, the NHTSA does want auto manufacturers to offer more specific data about battery testing for these types of vehicles.

Auto Defects and Car Fires
Any auto that catches fire is dangerous for those in and around the vehicle. It is therefore essential that cars and their parts do not possess any auto defects that raise the risk of a car bursting into flames--especially following a traffic crash.

Couple an auto defect that is a fire hazard with a tank of gasoline and the consequences can prove catastrophic, further exacerbating any serious injuries that may have already been sustained by any victims. Rescue efforts may become hampered, as emergency workers attempt to stay alive while trying to pull the driver and any occupants from the motor vehicle.

If a crash victim is lucky enough to survive the car fire, he or she may have to cope with the excruciating pain that comes with serious burn injuries that can leave the victim seriously disfigured and disabled for life. Recovery can be a very long and costly process.

Our auto products liability law firm represent clients throughout the US that were injured as a result of safety defects that contributed to causing the serious personal injuries and wrongful deaths.

Statement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration On Formal Safety Defect Investigation of Post-Crash Fire Risk in Chevy Volts, NHTSA, November 25, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Illinois Auto Defect Lawsuit Blames Ford For Truck Fire That Burned House Down, Product Liability Law Blog, September 21, 2011

Auto Defects: Fire Hazards Prompt General Motors and Chrysler to Recall Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, June 8, 2010

Ford Recall and GM Chevrolet Fire Incidents Rekindle Fire Hazard Concerns, Product Liability Law Blog, February 13, 2008

Continue reading "NHTSA Probing Whether GM Chevrolet Volt's Lithium-Ion Batteries Pose a Fire Hazard" »

Each year, World Against Toys Causing Harm, Inc. puts out its "10 Worst Toys" list as a warning to consumers for products to avoid when shopping for the holiday season. Toys that made this year's list that pose specific child injury hazards include the:

• Twist 'n Sort
• Fold and Go Trampoline
• Power Rangers Samurai Mega Blade
• Pulling Animal Duck
• Z-Curve Bow
• Sword Fighting Jack Sparrow
• "Gigan" Godzilla Figure
• Stepper "Low Rise" Stilts
• The Incredible Shrinky Dinks Maker
• School Bus by Schylling

The dangers involved vary, but include choking hazards, the risk of impact injuries, strangulation risks, electrical shock and burn dangers, and the risk of puncture wounds. Our toy defect lawyers want to remind you that when choosing what toys to buy, consider the age of the child that you are buying for and whether the product is appropriate for their abilities and safe for them to use.

Unfortunately, every year, there are children that end up sustaining serious injuries because they were playing with a dangerous or defective toy. Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors can be held liable for products liability in these instances. There is absolutely no reason why an unsafe toy should be made available in the marketplace.

In addition to its 10 worst list, WATCH wants shoppers to watch out for toys that:
• Don't come with warnings, operating instructions, or age recommendations
• Have hair, fur, and other parts that can be ingested
• Include small pieces that can be easily swallowed (removable attachments, such as bells and beads fall under this category)
• Have pieces that shoot out, potentially posing a safety risk to the eyes
• Have pointed tips or sharp edges that can cut or pierce the skin
• Come with lengthy strings that may pose a strangulation hazard
• Are made with flammable materials
• Pose electrocution hazard
• Include toxic substances, such as lead or phthalates

The Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, which releases its annual Trouble in Toyland report each year, says that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for recalling any unsafe or defective toys, doesn't test all toys and not all of those that end up on store shelves meet the safety agency's standards. If you believe there is a dangerous toy out there or your child was injured because of a toy, you should report it to the CPSC, as well as contact our child products liability law firm immediately.

While tougher federal rules and new toy safeguards should mean there are less dangerous toys being sold now than ever before, one unsafe toy in the marketplace is one hazard too many. The CPSC says that last year, there were 17 child deaths involving toys--up from the 15 fatalities in 2009. Almost 50% of these deaths involved choking accidents. Also in 2010, 181,500 kids in the under 15 age group ended up in ERs because of injuries from toys.

2011 Dangerous Toy List, WATCH

Trouble in Toyland, PIRG

Consumer Product Safety Commission

More Blog Posts:
Swallowing High-Powered Magnets Can Be Deadly for Kids, Warns CPSC, Product Liability Law Blog, November 6, 2011

Little Tikes Recalls Another 1.7 Million Toy Workshop and Tool Sets Over Choking Hazard, Product Liability Law Blog, October 6, 2011

Choking, Entrapment, Fall, and Suffocation Hazards Prompt CPSC's Latest Recalls Involving Children and Infant Products, Product Liability Law Blog, April 5, 2011

The parents of a 4-month-old girl who died after she became entrapped in her portable baby recliner is seeking $75K in Michigan products liability damages from manufacturer Baby Matters LLC. The baby, Juliette Thiel, died on July 9, 2010 from asphyxiation.

The infant was found hanging from the Nap Nanny's side while her face had gotten caught between the recliner and the crib bumper. In their Michigan wrongful death complaint, Brian and Mako Thiel accused the manufacturer of failing to make sure there were proper warning labels that came with the infant recliner cautioning against suffocation injuries.

Following Juliette's fatal accident, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 30,000 Nap Nanny recliners. The federal safety agency said the recliners posed fall, entrapment, and suffocation hazards. CPSC and Baby Matters also reported that there had been least one other known incident of a an infant entrapment accident happening while the Nap Nanny was being used in crib. That baby, who fell over the recliner's side, got caught between the Nap Nanny and the crib's side and sustained a head cut. Additionally, 22 reports involving harnessed infants falling out of or hanging over the Nap Nanny's side were filed.

In their Michigan child products liability lawsuit, the Thiels are contending that not only are there two patents indicating that the Nap Nanny was made to be used in a crib, but also, product marketing materials prior to March 2010 promote that the child recliner be used this way. The CPSC has since advised that the Nap Nanny not be used inside a crib, play yard, or another confined space. Placing the Nap Nanny on an elevated surface is also not recommended because the baby might fall out.

The Thiels say that as early as March 2010, the CPSC told Baby Matters it was looking into whether the Nap Nanny had defects. At the time, the manufacturer said denied this. However, the couple says that in May 2010, the CPSC found that the Nap Nanny was defective, came with a harness that did not properly restrain infants or keep them secure, and if used in a crib placed the baby at risk of becoming entrapped and suffocating. Warning labels and directions also were found inadequate. Juliette died two months later. Her parents are seeking over $75,000 in Michigan wrongful death damages.

Manufacturers are supposed to warn of any safety risks that come with using a product. This includes making sure that a product comes with the appropriate warning labels and operating instructions. It would be even better if products did not have any design defects that made them dangerous for children and infants to use--especially while they are asleep and unsupervised.

Couple sues firm in death of infant, The Detroit News, November 19, 2011

Baby Matters Recalls Nap Nanny® Recliners Due to Entrapment, Suffocation and Fall Hazards; One Infant Death Reported, CPSC, July 26, 2010

More Blog Posts:
New Crib Safety Standards Go Into Effect Today, Product Liability Law Blog, June 28, 2011

Choking, Entrapment, Fall, and Suffocation Hazards Prompt CPSC's Latest Recalls Involving Children and Infant Products, Product Liability Law Blog, April 5, 2011

22,000 Dream on Me Drop-Side Cribs Recalled Because They Pose Laceration, Entrapment, Suffocation, and Fall Hazards, Product Liability Law Blog, May 24, 2011

A federal court in New Jersey says that retailers can indeed be held strictly liable for selling defective products. The case is DeGennaro v. Rally Manufacturing.

In this New Jersey products liability case, the plaintiff sued the manufacturer and seller of a lead-acid battery that he said exploded while in his hand. The judge found that Pep Boys' management either should have or already knew that the battery was at risk of exploding because it had heat-sealed packaging. The court therefore determined that Pep Boys could not avail of the safe harbor provisions that protect sellers for being liable for products liability.

Under the New Jersey Product Liability Act, there are safe harbor provisions that under certain conditions protect product sellers. To avail of these, the seller must be able to identify the maker from whom damages should be sought and cannot have created the product defect. However, if a seller knew/should have known that the product was defective, then safe harbor cannot be obtained. In DeGennaro, not only was there evidence that Pep Boys knew about the defect but also, despite this knowledge, the store kept selling the battery.

Generally, someone who is injured by a defective product can hold the seller liable. One reason for this is that liability can occur during any point in the chain of distribution and production, which means that not just the manufacturer may be found responsible. It is also uncommon for the product's distributor to be held accountable for products liability resulting in personal injury. Damages can even be obtained if a product was misused if that wrong usage was foreseeable.

A defect can be one involving the product's design (known as a design defect), one that occurs while the product was being manufactured, (manufacturing defect), or after it has been created (likely a marketing defect). The majority of products liability cases are considered strict liability cases. Strict liability lets a plaintiff obtain damages from an injury that was caused by a product without having to prove that the defendant engaged in wrongdoing. In states where strict liability is no longer allowed, a plaintiff may have to prove that the defendant was negligent. This includes showing there was a relationship between the plaintiff and the manufacturer, that the latter owed the former a duty of care, and this duty had been breached, resulting in injury to the plaintiff.

Retailers are liable when they sell defective goods, court reaffirms, The Sacramento Bee, November 16, 2011

DeGennaro v. Rally Manufacturing

More Blog Posts:
Swallowing High-Powered Magnets Can Be Deadly for Kids, Warns CPSC, Product Liability Law Blog, November 10, 2011

Products Liability: Fire Gel Fuel Used in Firepots, Fancy Torches, and Personal Fireplaces Posing a Serious Burn Injury Hazard to Consumers, Product Liability Law Blog, August 3, 2011

Turkey Fryers Can Increase Fire and Injury Risk During Thanksgiving, Product Liability Law Blog, November 22, 2010

Continue reading "Retailers Can Be Held Strictly Liable for Sale of Defective Products, Reaffirms Federal Court" »