Product Liability Law Blog

American Honda Motor Company says it is adding another 440,000 Honda autos to a recall it announced last November over a possible defect in the vehicles’ airbag inflation systems. 2001 Civics, 2001-2002 Accords, and 2002-2003 Acura TL’s are included in this expanded recall, but not all autos from these model years are part of the recall.

At least one death and six injuries are being linked to the airbag defect, which involves “airbag inflators that produce over-pressurization of the driver’s front airbag inflator mechanism” when the airbag deploys. This can cause a rupture in the inflator casing. Metal fragments might then go through the airbag cushion’s cloth material, possibly injuring or killing a vehicle occupant.

Car owners whose vehicles may be potentially affected by the recall will get a recall notice in the mail. Honda also has directed owners that have models mentioned to check the car maker’s Web site for more information (see link below).

While airbags are designed to keep people safe during a car accident, this isn’t always the case. One reason for this is that the increase in airbag manufacturing has led to an increase in injuries caused by defective air bag systems.

According to Safercar.gov, in the last 21 years, frontal air bags saved the lives of 25,782 people. However, in order to save people’s lives, the airbag has to deploy in the correct way at the correct time. In the last 12 years, over 4 million motor vehicles have been recalled because of possible air defects. There also have been numerous air bag-related complaints that did not necessarily warrant a recall but still may have caused injuries.

It can be frustrating to know that your loved one’s life might have been saved if only a particular airbag deployed correctly or did not pose another type of safety hazard that caused serious injury. Injuries caused by any vehicle defect can be grounds for an auto products liability lawsuit.

When an auto manufacturer makes a mistake by designing a defective airbag system and someone dies or gets hurt, it is time to see if the car maker can be held liable for products liability.

Honda adds 440,000 cars to recall over airbags, CNN.com, July 31, 2009

American Honda Expands Airbag Safety Recall, WSJ, July 31, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Honda

Defects and Recalls, Safercars.gov

Continue reading " Serious Airbag Defect Leads Honda to Recall 440,000 More Civics, Accords, and Acura TL’s " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Air Bags , Auto Recalls , Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently recalled a number of kids’ products over choking hazard concerns. Last Thursday, the CPSC recalled approximately 3,700 LeapFrog My Pal Scout Electronic Plush Toy Dogs because the paws’ decals could come off, making the pieces easy for a child to swallow.

So far, LeapFrog Enterprises Inc. has received two reports of children taking the decals off the toys. One child ingested a portion of the decal. The CPSC and LeapFrog are recommending that parents and guardians take My Pal Scout away from kids and get in touch with LeapFrog so that the toymaker can send them a replacement that has embroidered paws.

Also last week, the CPSC, Buster Brown and Co., and Pagoda International Footwear Ltd. recalled approximately 1.4 million Clog and Children’s Shoes. The reason for the recall is that the decorative wheels on the shoes can come off, posing a choking hazard. The shoes involved in the recall are designed to look like cars. 73,000 CARS Fleece Clog Children’s Shoes, also by Buster Brown and Co., were recalled in the US in April also over choking hazard worries.

Earlier in the month, the CPSC and Evenflo Company Inc. recalled about 25,000 Evenflo Switch-A-Roo Telephone Toys because a mirror decal on the toy might peel away and become a possible choking hazard. No injures have been reported, but the CPSC and the manufacturer are recommending that consumers stop using the product right away and remove the mirror decal as soon as possible.

Kids and Choking Hazards
Products that contain any pieces that are potential choking hazards can cause serious injuries to young kids. Choking is a leading cause of accidental deaths for kids younger than age 5.

Toddlers are especially inclined to want to touch, smell, and taste small objects, placing them in their mouths. The problem is that young kids have small airway passages and gastrointestinal tracts, which increases the likelihood that they could choke if they swallow or ingest small, foreign objects.

LeapFrog Recalls Electronic Plush Toys Due to Choking Hazard, CPSC, July 23, 2009

Buster Brown Clogs Recall, Wavy, July 22, 2009

Evenflo Recalls Telephone Toys Due to Choking Hazard, NewsInferno, July 17, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Choking Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics

CPSC

Continue reading " Choking Hazard Issues Prompts CPSC Recall of Kids’ Products, including LeapFrog Toys and Buster Brown Clogs " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Infant Products , Injuries to Children & Minors , Nursery Products , Toys

Bookmark:

According to an investigation conducted by a Seattle television station, there have been a number of Apple IPod players that have burst into flames, exploded, or overheated, causing property damage and injuries. The TV station, KIRO TV, managed to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the Consumer Product Safety Commission to turn over 800-pages discussing the hazards associated with Apple’s IPods. The report was obtained with some resistance from Apple. The company’s attorneys reportedly kept filing exemptions to keep the information from going public.

Some of the injury incidents involving IPods:

• One woman says her young daughter sustained burn marks when she picked up her IPod. Apple told her that the burn accident was an isolated one.

• Another burn injury victim, Jamie Balderas, says she sustained a burn mark on her chest because her new iPod Shuffle overheated while she was running. The Washington resident says a customer service representative also told her that the incident was an isolated one.

• One young IPod user, 14-year-old Portland, Oregon resident Haylie Mooney, says her hand became swollen after she picked up her iPod, which she received for Christmas in 2007. She says that the iPod felt so hot to the touch that she dropped it immediately. Haylie’s mother, Tami Mooney, says that when she reported the injury incident to Apple, they didn’t seem concerned that her daughter had gotten hurt. Tami says Apple told her that they hadn’t heard of this kind of burn accident happening to any other IPod users.

• Last March, the mother of a teenage boy that sustained burn injuries to his leg because he says his 16GB iPod Touch exploded in his pants filed a products liability lawsuit alleging injuries to a minoragainst Apple. The boy, 15, sustained second-degree burns.

According to the CPSC’s report, the IPods’ lithium batteries may be the cause of the burn and fire accidents. Yet with more than 175 million iPods sold, the federal agency has determined that the number of injury accidents that have occurred is pretty low compared to the number of iPods that are made and sold and at this point doesn't believe a recall is warranted.

Yet even such minor incidents can result in serious burn injuries, such as when an iPod overheats, causing its user’s clothes to catch fire.

Apple sued over 'exploding' iPod Touch, News.cnet.com, March 13, 2009

Apple Downplays Fiery iPod Incidents, KIROTV.com

Apple Tries to Downplay iPod Fire Incidents, OS News, July 22, 2009

Consumer Complaints about their iPods (PDF)

Related Web Resources:
CPSC

Contacting Apple

Continue reading " CPSC Report Documents Burn Injuries Caused by Apple’s iPods " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Burn , Burn Injuries , Injuries to Children & Minors

Bookmark:

Recently, Lennar Corp. reported that it has identified 400 homes that it constructed in Florida that contain defective Chinese drywall. This is troubling news for the homes' residents, who may be suffering from the effects caused by this defective product.

According to some experts, almost 300,000 US homes may contain the defective drywall. The material was brought over from China between 2004 and 2007 when there was a shortage of domestic wallboard and thousands of homes had to be rebuilt following a number of hurricanes. Lennar says there may be more homes in Florida it has yet to identify that contain the defective dry wall.

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s recent status report to lawmakers states that it has received 608 incident reports involving defective Chinese drywall from people in 21 states and in Washington DC. The CPSC says at least 5,503,694 Chinese drywall sheets were imported to the US. Already, a number of homeowners in the US have filed products liability lawsuits over the defective chinese drywall.

Defective Chinese Drywall
The drywall is made of gypsum and is coated with paper. It is found in the walls and the ceilings of many homes.

There are concerns that the defective drywall was made in gypsum mines where fly ash was used. The drywall may contain high levels of sulfur, which can corrode the piping, damage the wiring in the home, lead to appliance and electronic failure, and cause health issues.

There is evidence to indicate that exposure to the defective drywall for extended periods of time can cause health issues. The material may contain poisonous compounds that can affect bone growth in children and impact the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, the liver, the skin, the eyes, and the kidneys. Infants, the elderly, sick people, and kids are highly vulnerable to the effects of defective Chinese dry wall.

One Florida resident says the drywall is causing her to have skin problems, experience nosebleeds, and suffer from insomnia. In North Carolina, one family sued the builder of their home because they say that the defective Chinese drywall in their walls not only damaged their home and personal property but also made them sick.

Lennar: 400 homes have Chinese drywall, Business Journal, July 13, 2009

CPSC Says Drywall In 21 States, Details Testing Programs, NewsInferno.com, July 14, 2009

Related Web Resources:
CPSC Drywall Status Report (PDF)

Chinese Drywall

Continue reading " Defective Chinese Drywall in US Homes Can Lead to Products Liability Lawsuits " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Toxic Tort/Environmental Cases

Bookmark:

The recent bankruptcy filings by General Motors and Chrysler prevent victims of defective vehicles manufactured by G.M. and Chrysler from suing for any compensation for injuries or deaths caused by such vehicles before the bankruptcy filing. The amount of such claims is estimated at $1.25 billion.

In the case of General Motors only, an agreement reached between the Obama administration and G.M. provides that persons who are injured or killed by G.M.’s defective and unreasonably dangerous vehicles after the “new” G.M entity emerges from bankruptcy, including injury and death claims caused by vehicles manufactured by the “old” G.M. before the bankruptcy filing, will have the right to sue the new G.M. Injuries and deaths that occurred before the bankruptcy filing are discharged by the filing, meaning that victims will probably never be compensated, no matter how meritorious their claims may be. (Some GM/Chrysler consumers have been killed or seriously injured by seatbelts that come unbuckled during a crash because of elbow contact. Other examples include consumers paralyzed by roofs that crush in on the occupant in moderate rollovers.) The G.M. agreement was prompted by G.M.’s fear that litigation over this issue may delay its emergence from bankruptcy. As of this date, Chrysler has not reached a similar agreement.

Although warranty claims on vehicles manufactured pre-bankruptcy could legally be discharged by the filing, both General Motors and Chrysler have proposed in their reorganization plans to honor such claims. (In other words, “parts before people”). Similarly, both corporations have agreed to have a continuing obligation to recall vehicles with safety-related defects and vehicles that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It is difficult to understand, therefore, exactly why General Motors and Chrysler want to relieve themselves of paying just compensation for injuries and deaths caused by those same unsafe vehicles before the bankruptcy filings.

Do ethics and morality apply to vehicle manufacturers? Is it ethical to receive a multi-billion dollar infusion of public funds and then throw victims under the bus? Is it moral to honor an obligation to an inanimate object (a vehicle warranty), but not honor an obligation to a severely injured person or to the family of a deceased person? Should a corporation not pay for injuries and deaths it causes? How can the consuming public be expected to trust American corporations that do not assume responsibility for their unreasonably dangerous and defective vehicles? Is it a lack of integrity for the manufacturer to know that there are millions(?) of dangerous vehicles still on the road, but ignore many of those persons who have been and inevitably will be killed or injured by those vehicles? Chrysler and G.M. should be required to answer these questions to the satisfaction of its customers. William Clay Ford, Jr. emphasized Ford’s commitment to ethical standards: “One of the noteworthy Business Principles is our commitment to accountability, where we pledge to ‘be honest and open and model the highest standards of corporate integrity.’ Since our commitment to conducting business fairly and honestly began a century ago, integrity is not a novel concept at Ford. It does, however, require a personal commitment by each of us to act ethically in a rapidly changing business environment and confirm our actions to the high standards that we set for ourselves.”

. ..“Fulfilling our commitment to accountability and focusing on ‘doing the right thing’ will help us succeed in all that we do.”

...At Ford: “Quality is Job 1.” At Ford: “Ethics is Job 1”. At General Motors and Chrysler: “The Bottom Line is Job 1!”

~Jim Gilbert~

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability

Bookmark:

This month, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled a number of infant products. On Wednesday, Kolcroft Enterprises Inc. recalled 1 million Play Yards because of concern that the furniture’s side rail might fail to latch correctly or unlatch suddenly, posing a potential fall hazard.

So far, there have been at least 374 reports of the play yard side rails collapsing. 21 kids sustained injuries, including scrapes, one concussion, bruises, and bumps.

Considering that play yards, play pens, cribs, mattresses, bathinettes, baby baths, and bath seats were the products most associated with nursery products-related deaths for children under age 5 between 2003 and 2005, it is important that this recall was issued. For a complete list of the play yards included in this recall, click on the link below.

Earlier this month, Simplicity recalled 400,000 Simplicity Drop Side Cribs. If the plastic hardware deforms or breaks, the drop side could detach, creating a space between the side and the mattress that a child can fall into. This can lead to an entrapment accident that could cause the child to suffocate.

There has been one child fatality reported in connection with this product defect—an 8-month-old baby from Texas. There also have been at least 25 reports of the drop sides detaching. 2 children fell into the gaps in their cribs and became entrapped. Fortunately, there have been no other reports of injuries.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says that in 2007, US emergency rooms treated 62,500 child injury cases involving children younger than age 5 that were hurt because of nursery products.

Falls were the number one cause of nursery products-related injuries that year, with the head area sustaining the most injuries. About 79 kids under age 5 die each year due to accidents involving nursery products.

Earlier this month, Gromex recalled 700 Jaloma Pacifiers. The reason for the recall is that the pacifier does not meant federal safety standards and may pose a choking hazard or aspiration risk to young kids.

Choking is one of the leading causes of accidental deaths involving kids younger than age 5. Pacifier manufacturers or the makers of other small items that young kids might end up using or putting in their mouths must make sure that their products are not too small that a toddler or infant could end up choking on an item.

Another common cause of accidental deaths involving kids under age 5 is drowning accidents. On July 2, the CPSC recalled 4 million Inflatable Baby Floats by Aqua-Leisure Industries because if the seat's leg straps tear, the child might fall into the water and drown. 31 incidents were reported involving the straps tearing. There have been no reports of injuries.

CPSC issues recall of Kolcraft play yards and Gromex Paloma pacifiers, Examiner.com, July 8, 2009

Kolcraft Recalls 1 Million Play Yards Due to Fall Hazard, CPSC.gov, July 8, 2009

Simplicity Drop Side Cribs Recalled by Retailers Due to Risk of Death from Suffocation, CPSC, July 2, 2009

Simplicity Drop-Side Cribs recalled by retailers due to risk of suffocation, Stamford Plus, July 9, 2009

Aqua-Leisure Industries recalls inflatable baby floats due to drowning hazard, Hawaii247.org

Related Web Resources:
Consumer Product Safety Commission

Nursery Product-Related Injuries and Deaths Among Children Under Age 5, CPSC, 2009 (PDF)

Continue reading " CPSC Recalls Play Yards, Pacifiers, Baby Floats, and Drop Side Cribs to Prevent Injuries to Young Children " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Infant Products , Injuries to Children & Minors , Nursery Products

Bookmark:

General Motors Corp. has announced that it will take responsibility for auto products liability lawsuits that are filed after the car maker sought bankruptcy protection. This is good news for people who were injured after June 1. Once the company emerges from bankruptcy, the “new GM” will honor future personal injury claims involving defective autos that were made by the “old GM.”

However, the injury victims and families that filed their products liability lawsuits before the “old GM” filed for bankruptcy still have not been given a way to obtain personal injury compensation or wrongful death recovery from the car manufacturer. 38% of all auto products liability claims filed between 2003 and 2008 were against GM. A committee that represents GM car crash victims says that over 300 people have personal injury claims valued at over $1.25 billion against General Motors.

The plaintiffs of the 2,642 products liability claims against the now bankrupt Chrysler face the same lack of recourse for financial recovery. While Fiat will assume responsibilities for warranties belonging to all Chrysler autos, the Italian auto manufacturer won’t be liable for past and future products liability claims involving defective Chrysler vehicles.

For example, Colorado Springs resident Sonya Segid’s arm was shattered when an air bag in her Dodge vehicle exploded. She now has two long scars on her arm. She is a sergeant who can no longer fire weapons and no won’t be joining her husband in Iraq.

Auto products liability lawyer Jim Gilbert of the law firm of Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte PC represents a number of personal injury and wrongful death clients in several states with products liability claims against Chrysler and GM. Mr. Gilbert is one of the attorneys calling on Congress to establish a fund for Chrysler and GM products liability victims. Otherwise, states could end up paying for medical care. Also, Attorney Gilbert is concerned that failure to determine what defect caused an injury or death could also result in more people getting hurt in the future because they won’t receive any warning about possible defects.

Considering that most car accidents caused by motor vehicle defects result in catastrophic if not fatal injuries that can be very costly to treat and recover from, this leaves auto products liability victims and their families at a huge disadvantage. Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte PC is nationally recognized as one of the products liability law firms in the country that obtains the best results possible for clients and their families. To find out more about our auto products liability lawyers and read about their latest headline making cases, please click on our In The News page for more information.

Contact our products liability law firm today.

Auto deals leave victims without day in court, 9News.com, June 24, 2009

G.M. to Maintain Legal Liability for Claims, New York Times, June 27, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, US Courts

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Colorado , Motor Vehicle Safety , States

Bookmark: