Product Liability Law Blog

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a warning that using a water walking ball can be dangerous and may cause injury to children and adults—although it is mainly used by kids. The water walking ball has different brand and ride names.

The see-through, inflatable plastic ball is large enough for a person to enter. After the rider climbs in, he she is locked inside. There is no emergency exit out of the ball, which can be only opened by someone outside it. Water walking balls can be found in certain carnivals, amusement parks, malls, sporting events, and other areas of high traffic. The balls are also sold for personal use.

The CPSC is warning that the walking water ball can pose a suffocation hazard especially as the airtight ball may limit the air supply inside if oxygen gets depleted and carbon monoxide starts to built. Impact injuries can also result if two balls collide with each other or the balls end up rolling off the grass or ice or out of the water and onto a concrete surface because they don't have padding.

Also, if the ball is in the water and it gets punctured, the person inside could end up drowning. Other injuries can occur if a water walking ball is hit by a boat or strikes another hard object. Water walking balls have been used in pools, rivers, and lakes.

In one Massachusetts water walking ball accident, a child became unresponsive while in the ball. Another person, a boy, sustained a fracture after the ball he was in fell out of a shallow pool and rolled onto the ground.

If you or your loved one was hurt while using a water walking ball, you should contact our products liability law firm right away. It is the responsibility of any manufacturer to ensure there product is safe for use and that it comes with instructions on how to use safely. Warnings of possible hazards should also be included.

You may have grounds for a water walking ball accident lawsuit.

Consumer Alert: CPSC Warns of Deadly Danger with Water Walking Balls, CPSC, March 31, 2011

Gov't says don't walk on water: People in big, inflatable plastic balls can drown or suffocate, The Washington Post, March 31, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Unintentional Drowning: Fact Sheet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Products Liability, Nolo

More Blog Posts:
Playground Accident Death: Girl's Family Wants "X-Wave" Banned, Product Liability Law Blog, August 24, 2011

Stay Away from Dangerous Toys, Caution WATCH and PIRG, Product Liability Law Blog, November 30, 2010

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Delta Enterprise Corp. are again announcing recall of over 985,000 drop-side cribs that come with "Crib Trigger Lock and Safety Peg" hardware. This re-announcement comes two months after the crib maker and CPSC learned that a baby girl, 7 months, died in a Colorado crib entrapment accident in 2009. The original recall was announced in October 2008.

The crib, which was bought secondhand, had been put together but without bottom track safety pegs. The baby suffocated after getting stuck between the crib mattress and its drop side, which had detached. The missing safety pegs contributed to the drop-side rail coming off its track.

The 2008 recall was issued after another infant, 8 months, died in a crib entrapment accident when the drop-side detached. That crib was also assembled without safety pegs. Missing pegs was also a factor in the 9 crib detachment and 2 entrapment incidents that had been reported.

It is important that a crib is properly assembled and all pieces are securely in place. Cribs should also be free of hardware defects that can cause dangerous malfunctions, such as when a drop-side becomes derailed, creating an opening between the mattress and the side of a crib that can lead to entrapment and, subsequently, suffocation, as well as other injuries. For example, if a child were to fall out of the crib because a drop-side had partially come off, he/she might sustain bruises, broken bones, cuts, or suffer a head injury.

Fortunately, the US government has now banned drop-side cribs in the US, which is linked to over 30 toddler and infant deaths over the last decade. Millions of drop-side cribs have had to be recalled because of the danger they pose to young kids. That said, there are still drop-side cribs that have already been bought or acquired secondhand that may cause injuries to children.

Our child injury lawyers are familiar with the crib defects that can cause serious injuries and we are not afraid to pursue recovery from a large manufacturer if their negligence played a role in causing the crib accident.

Second Infant Death Prompts Re-Announcement of Delta Enterprise "Safety Peg" Drop-Side Crib Recall to Repair, CPSC, March 22, 2011

After dozens of deaths, drop-side cribs outlawed, MSNBC/AP, December 15, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Delta Children's Products

Crib Safety, Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association

More Blog Posts:
CPSC Bans Drop-Side Cribs and Approves New Crib Safety Standards, Product Liability Law Blog, December 18, 2010

Delta Enterprise, LaJobi, Evenflo, and Jardine Enterprises Among the More than 2 Million Cribs Recalled Over Drop-Side Issues and Other Hazards, Product Liability Law Blog, June 29, 2010

Deaths of Two Infants Lead to Recall of Nearly 1.6 Million Delta Cribs and 2 Thousand Playkids Convertible Cribs, Product Liability Law Blog, October 22, 2008

Continue reading "Colorado Infant Death Prompts CPSC to Re-Announce Recall of Delta Enterprise Drop-Side Crib Over Safety Peg Defect" »

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has unveiled new child restraint guidelines that are categorized by age instead of the type of child seat. NHTSA wants children to use the restraint type recommended for each age for as long as possible before moving on to the next recommended child safety seat. Hopefully, these new guidelines will decrease the number of child injuries during car crashes.

NHTSA's car seat recommendations:
Up to 12 months: A rear-facing car seat.

1 to 3 years: A rear-facing car seat for as long as possible is recommended. NHTSA says to keep the child in this seat until he/she hits the weight or height limit allowed by the car seat manufacturer.

4 to 7 years: A forward-facing seat with a harness is best until he/she hits the weight or height limit.

8 to 12 years: A booster seat. The child should use a booster seat until he/she is big enough to use just a seat belt. Remember, the seat belt's lap belt should be able to snuggly go across the upper thighs (not the stomach) and it should also be snug over the chest and shoulder (not the face or neck). Previously, booster seats were recommended until only age 8.

Meantime, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a new policy in Pediatrics' April 2011 issue, advices that toddler should be kept in rear-facing car seats until they either turn 2 or grow bigger than the weight or height limit for the car seat. This is a revision of its previous age 1 recommendation for when to face the child safety seat forward.

According to a 2007 study in the journal Injury Prevention, children younger than 2 are 75% less likely to die if they are seated in a rear-facing child safety seat. On CNN.com, pediatric emergency doctor Dennis Durbin is quoted as saying that one reason that rear-facing child safety seats are safer is that they are better at supporting the spine, neck, and head during a car crash.

Our child injury lawyers represent families of kids hurt in car crashes because a child car seat was defective or failed in some way. Manufacturers must make sure that their products not only adhere to standards set by the government but also, they must be safe for use. Otherwise, injury or death can be grounds for a products liability case.

New Age-Focused Guidelines Help Parents Make More Informed Choices, NHTSA, March 21, 2011

AAP: Toddlers in rear-facing seat until 2, CNN, March 21, 2011

Child Safety-Seat Recommendations, Revamped, ABC News, March 21, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Car Seat Recommendations for Children, NHTSA (PDF)

Pediatrics

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the underride guards on tractor-trailers are not strong enough to prevent a smaller vehicle from getting under a big rig during a rear-end crash. The consequences can prove deadly for the car occupants. Over 350 people a year are killed in truck underride accidents. If weak or inadequate underride guards are causing preventable injuries and deaths, the victims and their families may have grounds for an auto products liability case.

The IIHS arrived at these findings after its new crash tests and analysis showed that the underride guards may fail in low-speed collisions. For example, when the Institute crashed a 2010 Chevy Malibu moving at 35 mph into a parked trailer equipped with a rear guard that meets US standards, the guard gave away, causing the vehicle to slide underneath the trailer and crushing it. The IIHS says that if real people had been in the car they likely would not have survived. The Institute also examined Large Truck Crash Causation Study data to identify crash patterns involving the rear underride of semi-trailers and heavy trucks both with and without guards. Of the 115 truck crashes involving a passenger auto rear-ending a large truck, underride was a common outcome.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 423 vehicle occupants of cars that rear-ended large trucks are killed each year. Over 5,000 others are injured. Among the serious injuries that can result are decapitation, traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, crushed bones, facial injuries, massive internal injuries, and wrongful death. An ABC News story cites Nancy Meuleners, who lost part of her tongue and her jaw in a rear underride truck crash. She has had to undergo 40 surgeries and her life was catastrophically altered because of the accident.

The IIHS says that if big rigs were equipped with stronger rear impact guards, some of the injuries and deaths could be prevented. The IIHS is petitioning the federal government to require that durable underride guards that are able to stay in place during a rear-end crash become a requirement for more large trucks and trailers.

Our automotive products liability law firm represents victims of catastrophic motor vehicle accidents caused by defective auto parts.

Underride guards on big rigs often fail in crashes; Institute petitions government for new standard, IIHS, March 1, 2011

Truck Underride Accidents: Drivers Endangered When Cars Slide Under Trailers, ABC News, March 1, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Continue reading "Rear Impact Guards May Not Be Tough Enough to Stop Deadly Underride Truck Crashes" »

Six months after her daughter almost died in an Oregon pool accident, Kimberlee Rhodes is seeking $12.5 million for the child injuries. Victoria, 6, was attending a children's summer camp when the near-drowning accident happened. Defendants include the U.S. West Coast Taekwondo Association, the Tigard-Tualatin Aquatic District, and school leaders Richard Shin and Jay Shin.

In her Oregon drowning accident lawsuit, Rhodes says she told the camp organizers that Victoria couldn't swim and that they reassured her there would be other activity options for non-swimmers. However, on August 20, 2010, her daughter ended up in the Tigard High School pool.

Police and medical workers were called after Victoria was found underwater. She wasn't breathing and didn't have a pulse.

Victoria was transported to the hospital critical condition. She was later taken to another hospital where she stayed until October.

Rhodes says that her daughter is still recovering. She blames the camp organizer for "failing to keep a proper lookout" over Victoria. She also claims that the people who were supposed to watch her daughter were inadequately trained.

Pool Drowning Accidents
For those who are lucky enough to survive a poor drowning accident, the risk of serious injury is high. Near-drowning accidents can cause brain damage, hypoxia, cardiac arrest, asystole, bradycardia, and ventricular dysrhythmias. The experience can also be incredibly traumatizing.

It is no secret that young kids and non-swimmers are among those at highest risk of drowning. It is important that they are adequately supervised when they are in the pool. There should also be emergency equipment in the pool area.

Pool owners and parties in charge of overseeing pool safety can be held liable if someone gets hurt or dies. Unfortunately, swimming pool accidents are an all too common occurrence.

Lawsuit seeks $12.5 million in damages following near-drowning at Tigard pool last year, Oregon Live, February 14, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Drowning, emedicinehealth

Water Safety, Protect Your Child from Drowning, MayoClinic

Drownings, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

More Blog Posts:
CPSC and HSC Report 172 Child Drownings and Over 180 Nonfatal Swimming Accidents in US Pools and Spas Since Memorial Day Weekend, Product Liability Law Blog, September 8, 2010

Child Drowning Accidents: Reminder to Parents and Pool Owners to Take Steps to Prevent Swimming Accidents This Summer, Product Liability Law Blog, June 27, 2010

Stepping back from its previous ruling in Geier v. American Honda Motor Company that the automaker could not be sued for car products liability because, at the time, federal safety regulations considered the installation of air bags optional, the US Supreme Court, in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, is now saying that this type of auto defect lawsuit—involving the car part chosen by the manufacturer—can proceed.

The family of Thanh Williamson claims that Mazda's failure to install a lap-and-shoulder belt in the rear middle seat of the 1993 minivan caused her wrongful death. Williams was wearing only a lap belt when she died in a 2002 car crash. While Mazda says that it should be immune from their seat belt defect lawsuit because federal safety regulations allowed it to choose which type of seat belt to install in certain rear seats, the US Supreme Court says that unlike in the Geier case, when regulators were still uncertain about the effectiveness of air bags, in the Williamson case, even though automakers had been given the option of which seat belt to install, there was no doubt even back then that a lap-and-shoulder belt was safer for passengers than a lap belt.

To give you a sense of how the high court's ruling is paving the way for other auto products liability complaints that previously may not have stood a chance, this week, it ruled that Priester v. Ford Motor Co. should also get another day in court. The South Carolina Supreme Court had dismissed the car window defect case also on the grounds that federal regulations preempt the lawsuit.

James Lloyd's mom contends that her son may not have been fatally thrown from the vehicle of the 1997 F-150 pickup truck he was riding in during the 2002 rollover crash if only Ford had used laminated side windows rather than tempered glass ones. Federal safety regulations allowed for either option.

Suit Against Ford to Be Reconsidered, The Wall Street Journal, February 28, 2011

Supreme Court: Mazda Can Be Sued for Lack of Backseat Belts in Vans, ABC News, February 23, 2011

Mazda Seatbelt Lawsuit Prompts U.S. Supreme Court Appeal for Claims Shield, Bloomberg, November 1, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, US Supreme Court (PDF)

Geier v. American Honda Motor Company, US Supreme Court, Cornell.edu

More Blog Posts:
Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 13, 2011

Ford SUV Rollover Lawsuit: Jury Awards Baseball Player's Family $131 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, September 27, 2010

Seat Belt Syndrome: Child Safety Continues to Take a Back Seat, Product Liability Law Blog, November 14, 2009

Continue reading "Auto Products Liability: US Supreme Court Sends Window Defect Lawsuit Against Ford and Seat Belt Defect Case Against Mazda Back to the States" »