Product Liability Law Blog

Should you equip your child's crib with a bumper? According to USA Today, one mother, Laura Maxwell, intends to file a products liability lawsuit against a crib bumper manufacturer after Preston, her 7-week-old baby, died from asphyxiation when his face got caught between the mattress and crib bumper. Her son ended up against the bumper after rolling off a "sleep positioner," an accessory that is supposed to keep babies on their backs but has been linked to fatal suffocations. Maxwell and her husband also plan to sue the sleep positioner manufacturer for wrongful death.

While the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Academy of Pediatrics are urging parents to not use "puffy" bumpers, both groups have yet to say "don't" use them. Some consumer and child safety groups, however, believe that the CPSC should take a tougher stance. They say that crib bumpers—the puffier ones, in particular—pose a child suffocation hazard.

Yet the information available at this time as to whether or not crib bumpers are truly a safety hazard appears to be conflicting and unclear. The CPSC says that in the 28 infant deaths that it investigated where bumpers were present it couldn't say for sure that the bumper caused the deaths. However, a 2007 report in the Journal of Pediatrics found that 27 babies had died because of crib bumpers. Still others have said that the crib bumpers may prevent head injuries and leg fractures.

This latest debate, as well as the recent recalls involving drop-side cribs and other infant products, can't help but raise questions regarding whether or not manufacturers are doing enough to make sure that the products they are making for babies and toddlers are safe enough. Why are so many baby accessories and furniture turning out to be possible choking or suffocation hazards?

When a Cuddly Crib Puts the Baby in Danger, The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2011

Crib bumpers present risk and little likely benefit, safety advocates say, USA Today, April 26, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Consumer Product Safety Commission

American Academy of Pediatrics

Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association

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

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

CPSC Warns About Infant Sleep Positioners and Baby Monitor Cords Following Several Deaths, Product Liability Law Blog, November 11, 2010

Continue reading "Crib Bumpers: Are They Safe for Babies?" »

In a 42-26 vote, the California Assembly has approved a bill that would stop Enterprise, Hertz, Avis and other rental companies from selling or renting vehicles that have been recalled until the autos are fixed. The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Bill Monning following the 2004 deaths of two sisters that were riding in an Enterprise rental. The Orange County Register reports that the parents of Jacqueline and Raechel Houck are among the bill's supporters.

The Houck sisters, Jacqueline, 20, and Raechel, 24, were not aware that their upgraded rental, a PT cruiser, had been recalled over a power steering defect could cause an underhood engine fire. This safety issue caused Raechel to become unable to steer the PT Cruiser while driving. The PT cruiser then ended up crossing the median of US 101, crashing into a tractor-trailer, and catching fire. The siblings died in the tractor-trailer crash.

Houcks' family would go on to sue Enterprise for the women's California wrongful deaths. During the case, their car accident lawyers found that the Enterprise branch that the sisters had gone to had rented the PT cruiser on three other occasions after it was recalled. Enterprise later admitted negligence and a jury awarded the girls' family $15 million in wrongful death damages.

The bill now heads for the California Senate. If it becomes law, it would be the first one in the US of this kind.

Rental car companies have complained that bill may be "overly broad" in not recognizing that federal recall announcements often do not denote whether the problem is a non-safety defect or a safety-related issue. They also have said that some defects can be temporarily fixed until a permanent repair is made and still not pose a safety risk. The companies are saying they would prefer a national standard.

Our auto products liability lawyers have seen the devastating consequences that can result when someone is injured in a traffic crash caused by an auto defect. We are not afraid to go up against auto large manufacturers or other parties responsible for your injuries or your loved one's death and fight for your right to financial recovery.

Calif. Assembly approves rental car recall bill, Forbes/AP, April 28, 2011

After sisters die, bill targets rental cars, OC Register, April 28, 2011

Rent-a-Car Companies Putting Recalled Autos on the Road, ABC News, July 7, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Hyundai Recalls 140,000 Sonata Sedans Over Steering Column Defect and General Motors Recalls 20,224 Cadillac CTS Because of Air Bag Problem, Product Liability Law Blog, September 25, 2010

uto Defects: Fire Hazards Prompt General Motors and Chrysler to Recall Vehicles, June 8, 2010

Continue reading "Auto Defects: California Assembly Approves Bill that Would Bar Rental Car Companies from Selling or Renting Out Recalled Vehicles Until They Are Repaired" »

The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently issued a warning that as the number of coin-sized batteries used increases, so do the number of injuries and deaths. Seniors and toddlers are most at risk of accidentally swallowing the button batteries. CPSC is asking battery manufacturers and the electronics industry to develop industry standards and warnings to address safety concerns. Our products liability lawyers would like to remind you that failure to find a way to remove/remedy/warn about a safety hazard can be grounds for a lawsuit if injuries result.

According to a recent button-battery linked deaths and injuries have gone up seven-fold since 1985. In most incidents, the culprit is 3 volt batteries that are at least 20 mm in diameter. Dr. Toby Litovitz of the National Capital Poison Center conducted the study.

The disc-sized batteries become dangerous when swallowed. If they don't get stuck in the throat, they may make their way all the way down to the intestine. Bodily fluids can cause the battery to release an electrical discharge that can cause chemical burns. Other injuries have included damage to the esophagus and the appearance of a whole between the trachea and esophagus.

Button batteries are used in thousands of products found in the home and are easy to for kids to access in toys, remote controls, games, and other products and appliances. CPSC says parents often don't realize that their toddler has swallowed a button battery, thinking that he/she just has a stomach ache, cough, sore throat, or fever. Over 60% of cases are initially diagnosed. Last year, the Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery published the work of Stanley J. Kimball of Mount Carmel Health System. In his study of 10 pediatric patients who accidentally swallowed a button battery between 1998 and 2008, he found that treatment usually occurred anywhere between 6 hours to 30 days of the baby swallowing the battery.

CPSC Warns: As Button Battery Use Increases, So Do Battery-Related Injuries and Deaths, CPSC, March 23, 2011

Swallowed "button" batteries cause severe injuries in babies, Baby Center, September 20, 2010

Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery

National Capital Poison Center

Continue reading "Number of Button Battery-Linked Deaths and Injuries Rising, Says CPSC" »

The parents of Jason Alan Foster have filed a Massachusetts SUV rollover lawsuit Mitsubishi Motors North America seeking damages for his wrongful death. Foster, 17, died from injuries he sustained in a 2009 SUV rollover crash. He was a passenger in the sport utility vehicle when the driver, a teen motorist, lost control of the vehicle and rolled over on a curve Michelle and Charles Foster say that the 2000 Mitsubishi Montero's design is "unreasonably dangerous." They are asking for $7 million.

In their Massachusetts SUV lawsuit, the Fosters claim that the vehicle had several design defects, including poor maneuverability, a design that doesn't protect occupants during rollovers, a high gravity center, and a tendency to oversteer. They contend that the automaker failed to warn about the flaws, defects, and/or the faulty design of the vehicle.

According to the Fosters' auto defects attorney, Mitsubishi knew about these vehicle defects that they are complaining about yet failed to act to remedy them. The couple is also seeking damages for emotional distress, negligence, and violation of state's consumer protection laws. Mitsubishi is denying the Fosters' allegations.

The Fosters are not the first to file an auto products liability complaint claiming that the SUV is a rollover risk. The failure to include electronic stability control on all models, the likelihood that the vehicle roof and pillars could collapse, and faulty seat belts are among the allegations that others have made. Some of the cases have resulted in juries awarding damages of up to $11 million.

SUV Rollovers
It is no longer news that SUVs are at greater risk of rolling over than passenger cars. Broken bones, internal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, crush injuries, head injuries, and neck injuries, are just some of the injuries that can be sustained in an SUV rollover. Vehicle ejection during a rollover crash is also not uncommon. Auto manufacturers know this and it is their job to make sure that their sport utility vehicles are designed to be as safe as possible so that the chances of an SUV rollover are minimized.

Parents file lawsuit over teens' death, Salem News, March 29, 2011

Related Web Resources:
aferCar.gov

Before you buy an SUV, PBS

More Blog Posts:
DOT Issues Rule to Reduce Vehicle Ejections During Rollover Accidents, Product Liability Law Blog, February 4, 2011

Ford SUV Rollover Lawsuit: Jury Awards Baseball Player's Family $131 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, February 4, 2011

Toyota Stops Selling Lexus GX 460 SUV After Consumer Reports Tells Shoppers 'Don't Buy' and Warns of Rollover Risk, Product Liability Law Blog, April 13, 2010

Pressure from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has prompted Ford to expand its voluntarily recall of F-150 pickup trucks to 1.2 million vehicles. The recall is over concerns that the air bag may deploy unexpectedly. Ford issued the original recall last February, involving 144,000 F-150's (2005 and 2006 models). The automaker says that an electric short circuit could make the airbags deploy suddenly and unnecessarily. Truck owners should take their vehicles to a dealer to have the air bag wiring replaced.

At the time, the NHTSA said that Ford needed to recall times more autos over the possible air bag defect. The federal agency says that number of incidents involving inadvertent air bag deployments—at least 269—was the largest in its history and some 98 injuries had been reported. Ford, however, said that to recall more wouldn't have been "common sense" and that the 144,000 pickups it had recalled were the ones with the highest failure rates (they were built at Ford's now-closed factory in Norfolk, Virginia). NHTSA, however, remained persistent, accusing the automaker of skewing the data and dismissing its claim that a warning light notifying drivers there was a problem would suffice.

This week, Ford recalled the other vehicles, which now also includes Lincoln Mark LT trucks (2006 models). However, the automaker did not admit that the air bag issue is an auto defect. The New York Times says that since Ford changed the air bags' wiring in 2006, an admission would indicate that it knew about the defect then, which would mean that the automaker had violated federal regulations. The law requires that a car manufacturer report a safety defect within five days of its discovery.

Ford is now recalling F-150 pickup trucks (2004 – 2006 models) that were made in its Kansas City, Missouri and Dearborn, Michigan factories. The auto manufacturer's F-series of pickup trucks is the number one selling motor vehicle in the US.

Air Bag Injuries
Although designed to protect passengers, air bags that deploy can cause serious injuries, especially when they don't inflate correctly or at the right time. Examples of air bag-related injuries:

• Eye injuries
• Spinal cord injuries
• Traumatic brain injuries
• Chest injuries
• Internal trauma
• Amputated fingers
• Concussions
• Fractures
• Burns

Our auto products liability lawyers represent clients who have been injured because an airbag was defective or malfunctioned.

Ford recall affects 1.2 million trucks, The Christian Science Monitor, April 14, 2011

Ford expands recall of F-150 pickup truck to about 1.2 million vehicles, Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2011

Ford recalls 144,000 F-150 trucks for airbag risk, Reuters, February 23, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Ford

Air Bags, NHTSA

More Blog Posts:
Toyota and Ford Top Are Automakers with Most Vehicles Recalled in 2009, Product Liability Law Blog, February 10, 2011

Hyundai Recalls 140,000 Sonata Sedans Over Steering Column Defect and General Motors Recalls 20,224 Cadillac CTS Because of Air Bag Problem, Product Liability Law Blog, September 25, 2010

As General Motors Recalls 1.3 Million Vehicles, Nissan Recalls 540,000 Pickup Trucks and Minivans and Mazda Recalls 12,300 SUVs, Product Liability Law Blog, March 3, 2010

Continue reading "Air Bag Safety Issue Prompts Ford to Expand Recall of F-150 Pickup Trucks to 1.2 Million" »

It's only the 5th of the month and already the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled more than 140,000 products that pose a child injury risk. The first recall, issued voluntarily with Infantino LLC, involves approximately 40,500 Troy the Activity Trucks. The toy is a possible choking hazard.

The recall comes following 28 reports of the plastic beads detaching from the truck's bead runs. At least two young children have gagged on the beads. The toy should be taken away from the child immediately. Infantino will provide a free replacement toy to those who ask.

In the recall issued this morning, CPSC and Arm's Reach Concepts Inc. are recalling approximately 76,000 Infant Bed-Side Sleepers. The announcement about the sleepers comes following several reports of babies falling from the raised mattress onto the bottom of the sleeper or getting entrapped between the side of the sleeper and the edge of the mattress.

The sleeper can become a fall hazard if the fabric liner isn't securely attached or not in use because that's when the child is at risk of falling from the raised mattress. Should the baby get entrapped in the side of the sleeper, he/she could suffocate. CPSC wants consumers to stop download assembly instructions from the Arms Reach Web site and make sure that the sleeper is properly configured before allowing a child to use it again.

Also, today, the CPSC and Key Baby LLC recalled about 29,000 Pampers® Natural Stages Infant Ortho and Bulb Pacifiers. These pacifiers are a choking hazard to children. No injuries have been reported so far.

Entrapment, choking, falling, and suffocation are some of the more common causes of child injuries and deaths involving consumer products. Manufacturers are supposed to make sure that their products are free from any defects that could cause serious injuries—especially to infants and young children who usually don't know how to protect themselves from such hazards.

It is important that you speak with our child injury law firm and request your free consultation. You may have grounds for a products liability case against a negligent manufacturer, seller, or distributor.

Unfortunately sometimes a dangerous or defective product isn't recalled until after someone has already gotten hurt.

Toy Truck Recalled for Choking Hazard, Chesire Patch, April 4, 2011

Arm's Reach recalls infant bedside sleepers, ABC Local, April 5, 2011

Key Baby Pampers Natural Stages Infant Ortho and Bulb Stage 1 Pacifiers, Parenting.com, April 5, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Consumer Product Safety Commission

Product Hazards, Kids in Danger

Parenting