Product Liability Law Blog

Seven years after 16-year-old Tiffany Stabler was killed in a deadly car crash, a jury has awarded a $40 million Alabama auto products liability verdict to her family over her wrongful death. Stabler died on July 4, 2004 after she was ejected from the used 1999 Kia Sephia that her dad had given her just two months before on her birthday. The plaintiff's claim that because the seat belt was defective, it failed to keep Tiffany "buckled up" when she lost control of the vehicle, causing her to sustain fatal injuries.

Although Kia had issued a recall in 2002 over this "false latching" defect, that notice was only for vehicle models 1995 to 1998. In their Alabama seat belt defect lawsuit, Stabler's family contended that Kia did know that the seat belts in its 1999 and 2000 models had the same safety issue but failed to also recall those vehicles.

False Latching
With the "false latching" defect, a seat belt may appear, feel, and sound like it is properly secured in the buckle when in fact it is not. Even the slightest force can cause the buckle, which isn't latched properly, to come out of the latch plate. This leaves the vehicle occupant unbelted and not properly restrained, which can prove catastrophic during a car accident. A passenger who is unrestrained by a seat belt can end up ejected from the vehicle, thrown through the windshield or windows, or against the roof of the car. Traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, crush injuries, organ damage, or death can result.

Some Other Seat Belt Defects:

• Torn or ripped webbing: A defect in the belt causes the webbing to rip or tear, which can leave the vehicle occupant without adequate restraint protection.


• Inertial latching: The seat belt is more prone to coming unbuckled during a car crash.


• Retractor failure: When the retractor fails to hold the belt in place, too much slack can arise. This can cause the occupant to sustain serious injuries during a crash if he/she isn't adequately restrained and kept securely in place.


• Lap-only seat belts: This seat belt only restrains an occupant's lower body and does not protect against chest, abdominal, spinal, or head injuries.

Defective seatbelt flaw ruling costs Kia $40 million, Torque News, June 28, 2011

Related Web Resources:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Car Reviews and Ratings, Consumer Reports

Motor Vehicle Recalls, Safercar.gov

More Blog Posts:
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

Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 31, 2011

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

The new federal rules updating the nation's crib safety standards are now in effect. Under the new rules, which the US Consumer Product Safety Commission established:

• Drop-side cribs can no longer be manufactured or sold. With at least 32 infants dying from strangulation or suffocation while in a drop-side crib, these child sleepers have proven too dangerous to use let alone make or sell.
• Slat strength and mattress support must meet tougher standards.
• Crib hardware must be more durable
• Safety testing has to be more rigorous

Any company that sells or makes cribs must meet the new standards beginning today. Crib rental companies, day care centers, and hotels, however, have until December 28, 2012 to be in compliance. Unfortunately, just because the new rules are in effect doesn't mean that there won't be children who may get hurt because of existing cribs with defects. If this does happen, you should speak with an experienced products liability law firm immediately.

Some crib hazards that have given cause for concern:

• Drop-sides detaching or dropping without warning


• Too big of an opening created between the side of a crib and the mattress


• Crib slats coming loose

This is the first time in almost three decades that the US government has updated its crib safety standards. The decision to make this change follows the recalls of some 11 million cribs since 2007 that posed strangulation, suffocation, entrapment, and/or fall hazards to infants and toddlers. Even the big manufacturers, such as Delta, Simplicity, and Evenflo have recalled cribs.

As a parent or guardian, there are proactive steps you can take to make sure that a crib is safe:

• Check the crib to make sure there are no parts missing or loose.


• Make sure that the mattress fits the crib correctly.


• If you are staying at a hotel or leaving your child at day care check to make sure that the cribs they use are not drop-side cribs or ones that have other crib defects.

Crib safety standards expanded, Crib Safety Standards, June 28, 2011

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008

More Blog Posts:
Toddler's Parents File Massachusetts Crib Defect Lawsuit Seeking Wrongful Death Damages, Product Liability Law Blog, January 14, 2011

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

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 "New Crib Safety Standards Go Into Effect Today" »

The family of Rusty Lamont Hendriks is suing Ford for Texas products liability and wrongful death. The Hendriks claim that the auto manufacturer made a defective jack, which is why the family's Ford Freestar minivan fell on him.

Hendriks suffered fatal injuries on March 7 while trying to repair the Ford vehicle. He used the scissors jack, which was designed, made, and marketed for the van. According to his family's Texas wrongful death lawsuit, he placed the jack where the vehicle manual had designated that it should go but that the repair device still failed, causing the van to land on him.

The plaintiffs are accusing Ford of products liability negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, marketing flaws, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and misrepresentation. They say that Ford Motor Company had received other complaints about the scissors jack, which is too short, not well constructed, and unable to lift the weight of the vehicles that they are made for. They want damages for Hendriks's wrongful death, physical impairment, mental anguish, severe pain, medical costs, and burial and funeral bills. They also want damages for their humiliation, disfigurement, pain and suffering, income loss, mental anguish, and loss of consortium.

Auto manufacturers must make sure that all the parts that they make for their vehicles are free from any defects that could cause serious injuries or death. This includes not just auto parts but tools such as a scissors jack that a car owner is supposed to use when needing to raise the vehicle from the ground to make repairs.

Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Ford for defective jack after man crushed by van, Setexasrecord.com, June 6, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Safety Recalls, Safercar.org

Ford Motor Company

More Blog Posts:
Parents File Massachusetts $7M SUV Rollover Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi Motors Over Teenager's 2009 Wrongful Death, Product Liability Law Blog, April 20, 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

Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 31, 2011

Continue reading "Products Liability Lawsuit: Ford Sued Over Defective Jack in Wrongful Death of Man" »

A federal judge has scheduled the civil trial for Toyota sudden acceleration lawsuit of Van Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for February 19, 2013. The Utah wrongful death case is the first of hundreds of auto products liability lawsuits claiming that acceleration problems with a Toyota vehicle resulted in personal injuries or wrongful deaths.

In this case, Paul Van Alfen, 66, and Charlene Jones Lloyd, 38, were killed in a Utah car crash when the 2008 Toyota Camry they were in rammed into a wall on November 5, 2010. Van Alfen was driving the car that investigators say accelerated without warning.

Tire skid marks on the road show that he tried to stop the Toyota, which then went through a stop sign and an intersection before striking the wall. Lloyd was the fiancé of his son, who was also injured in the accident. Van Alfen's wife was also injured.

After talking to the crash survivors and witnesses, the Utah Highway Patrol determined that the gas pedal of the Toyota had gotten stuck. The model of Camry that Van Alfen had been driving was among those that were recalled because of concerns that their floor mats could get entangled with accelerator pedals.

Since 2009, Toyota has recalled millions of vehicles over concerns that sticky gas pedals, poorly designed floor mats, or other defects have caused sudden unintended acceleration accidents. The Van Alfen case is the first bellwether case over this matter in national litigation against Toyota to be scheduled for trial. Bellwether cases are significant in that their outcomes often serve as a benchmark for future lawsuits.

Toyota to face 2013 trial over sudden acceleration, Reuters, June 10, 2011

Utah case first Toyota suit to see US court, Forbes/AP, June 11, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Toyota

NHTSA

Safercar.gov

More Blog Posts:
Another Toyota Sudden Unintended Acceleration Accident?: Prius Crashes Into Mini-Mall, Trapping Driver in Elevator, Product Liability Law Blog, May 31, 2011

Another 2.1 Toyota Vehicles Recalled Over Sudden Unintended Acceleration Problems, Product Liability Law Blog, February 28, 2011

NHTSA Says Electronic Flaws Not Responsible for Toyota Sudden Acceleration Accidents, Product Liability Law Blog, February 9, 2011

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has approved a new rule giving it more power to both stop potentially hazardous hair dryers made outside the US from being shipped into the country and issue product recalls against violative hair dryers. Current industry standards mandate that hair dryers come with a device that preempts electrocution and shock injuries from happening should the device make contact with water.

The CPSC believes hand-supported hair dryer that don't have an immersion protection device are a safety hazard. Because hair dryers are often used in bathrooms, they are at risk of coming into close contact with water in bathtubs, sinks, and toilets. Hair dryers that lack this protection can be an electrocution hazard because their energized wires are not properly insulated.

Although hair dryers generally need a low voltage of electricity, serious injuries can happen if someone gets directly shocked and this occurs for a sustained length of time. For example, death can result if a plugged in hair dryer falls into a bathtub and someone is sitting in the water. In addition to electrocution injuries, hair dryers can also cause burn injuries if the temperature is set too high and someone comes into too close of physical contact with the it.

If your were hurt because a hair dryer was defective or malfunctioned, you should speak with an experienced products liability law firm about your accident. Product manufacturers must make sure that electrical products are properly insulated so that they don't cause electrocution injuries. They can be held liable if their failure to do so caused someone to get hurt.

CPSC Approves New Federal Safety Rule for Hair Dryers, CPSC, June 9, 2011

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008

Related Blog Posts:
830,000 Waxcessories Electric Simmer Pots Recalled Because Loose Wire Connections May Cause Electric Shock, Product Liability Law Blog, May 5, 2008

Burn and Electrocution Injuries Are Reasons for Latest CPSC Recalls of Heaters, Holiday Lights, Waffle Makers, and Tealight Candleholders, Product Liability Law Blog, May 4, 2009

CPSC, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and Toshiba Work Announce Recall of 35,000 PC Laptop Batteries Made by Sony Because of Burn and Fire Hazard, Product Liability Law Blog, November 4, 2008

Did you know that toning shoes actually may not provide additional fitness benefits and could even cause a wearer injuries? If you believe that you got hurt because you were wearing toning shoes, you should contact our products liability lawyers right away.

According to SportsOneSource, buyers spent over $1 billion on these shoes last year, which its manufacturers claim provide a better walking experience while helping tone the thigh, calf, and buttock muscles. However, the use of toning shoes has also resulted in reports of injuries.

Consumer Reports says that in its analysis of the Consumer Product Safety Commission database SaferProducts.gov, as of May 22, 2011, 36 people reported toning shoe injuries—more than for any other product in the database, which was just started in May. While most of the toning shoe-reported injuries were minor (foot, hip, or leg pain, and tendonitis), 15 of the injuries were broken bones. Some of the injuries required surgery.

The American magazine's medical experts say that although toning shoes do force wearers to exercise muscles normally not used when walking, their "rocker-style" bottoms that are designed to create instability can also lead to fall accidents, turned ankles, and other injuries. Also, the American Council on Exercise, which conducted its own testing last year, found that there is no evidence to support claims that toning shoes actually help burn calories or strengthen and tone the muscles. The council also wondered whether wearing toning shoes for too long could alter user's walking gait mechanics.

Elderly seniors experiencing balance problems are most likely to get hurt from toning shoes. However, seeing as 46 is the average age of those who submitted reports to Saferproducts.gov, younger people are not necessarily immune to toning shoe injuries.

Skechers, Avia, Danskin Now, and New Balance are some of the brands that sell toning shoes. American Apparel and Footwear Association Executive Vice President Steve Lamar has said that the shoes are exercise products and that wearers should follow the instructions on how to use them correctly. That said, if the directions provided are inadequate, there is no accompanying warning of injuries and risks, or the shoes have a design defect, the shoes manufactures could be held liable for products liability if someone were to get hurt.

Are toning shoes unsafe? Reports of injuries raise concern, Consumer Reports, May 25, 2011

Toning shoes: toning unclear, injury risk real, ABC Local, May 25, 2011

A revolutionary sneaker, or overhyped gimmick?, USA Today, June 30, 2010

Related Web Resources:
American Council on Exercise

Safer Products, CPSC

SportsOneSource

More Blog Posts:
Crocs Sued Again for Products Liability After 4-Year-Old Nearly Loses Toe in Escalator Accident, Product Liability Law Blog, April 6, 2009

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

Retailers Pay $320,000 Fine For Selling Defective Children's Clothing With Drawstrings, Product Liability Law Blog, May 13, 2008

Continue reading "Do Toning Shoes Cause Foot Injuries?" »