Product Liability Law Blog

More former NFL football players are suing the league and helmet maker Riddell for personal injury and products liability. The first complaint, filed in California, was submitted by 75 ex-pro players who claimed the National Football League concealed the head injury risks involved in playing the sport.

The plaintiffs of both lawsuits are accusing the NFL of failing until last year to let the athletes and the public know that players risked serious injury from concussions even though the league has known this information since the 1920's. Last year, the NFL acknowledged that concussions sustained during the game can result in brain injury symptoms, including memory loss and dementia.

As the official maker of helmets for professional football players, Riddell Sports Group is being sued for products liability. The plaintiffs don't believe that the helmets were made to protect from concussions, even though it is well-known that severe blows to the head can happen during football games. The plaintiffs also believe that the companies have been well aware of the damage that brain injuries cause in the long run.

Even in 2000, a study that surveyed over 1,090 ex-NFL players and noted that more than 60% had sustained at least one concussion while playing (26% had suffered at least three concussions) found that players who suffered this type of head injury later experienced more problems with concentration, memory, speech, and neurological challenges, as well as suffered from more headaches. A concussion is a type of brain injury.

In 2007, the study from the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of Retired Athletes found that of the nearly 600 ex-NFL players who sustained at least three concussions while playing the game, 20% of them suffered from depression--a rate that is 3 times greater than for players who never had a concussion.

In 2009, the NFL commissioned a study finding that ex-pro football players seemed more prone to developing memory-related diseases, including Alzheimer's, than the general population. The University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research conducted the study.

As for the making of football helmets, the standard has not changed in more than three decades. If Riddell and other helmet manufacturers (football isn't just played by professionals) are not doing enough to create helmets that protect players from concussions even though they know this type of injury is a possible risk, then they could be held liable for products liability.

Last year, Rutgers player Eric LeGrand became paralyzed from the neck down when his helmet struck an opposing player's shoulder. Atlanta Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson and Philadelphia Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson suffered head injuries when their helmets collided. If these helmets could/should have been tougher, the players may have grounds for filing personal injury lawsuits.

In January, New Mexico Senator Tom Udall wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission accusing Riddell, which also makes football helmets for high school athletes and younger kids, and Shutt Sports of engaging in "misleading marketing" that made their helmets appear more safe. Udall wants the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make a decision on whether the current helmet safety standards are enough to protect younger football players.

Ex-players hit NFL, Riddell with lawsuit, The News Tribune, July 21, 2011

Udall Seeks Investigation of Misleading Football Helmet Safety Claims, Tom Udall, January 4, 2011

Rutgers Player Is Paralyzed Below the Neck, NY Times, October 17, 2010

The Problem with Football: How to Make It Safer, Time, January 28, 2010

Related Web Resources:
NFL

Riddell

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

Target Recalls 350,000 Woven Storage Trunks After Toddler Sustains Traumatic Brain Injury During Strangulation Accident, Product Liability Law Blog, March 20, 2010

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

Continue reading "Ex-Pro Football Players Sue Helmet Maker Riddell and NFL for Traumatic Brain Injuries and Products Liability" »

A jury has awarded a woman $24.7 million for the California seat back collapse lawsuit she filed against seat manufacturer Johnsons Controls. Jaklin Romine became a paraplegic following the 2006 rear-end car crash. Romine, who is paralyzed from the chest down, says she will use the money to pay for full-time care, a vehicle she can drive on her own, and school.

The catastrophic auto accident occurred on October 21, 2006 when Romine was stopped at an intersection. When the rear-end crash happened, the driver's seat she was using broke and fell backwards, which caused her body to push backward below her seat belt. Her head then hit the back of the rear passenger seat.

During her California auto products liability trial, Jaklin's legal team argued that the car seat was so weak that it couldn't withstand the impact from a crash, which involved speeds as low as 30-mph. They accused the manufacturer of placing front vehicle occupants at serious risk of spinal cord injury, head injuries, and vehicle ejection.

Seatback Collapse
Seat back failure is a potentially fatal auto defect. Seatback collapses are most likely to happen in rear-end crashes when a car seat was made with inadequate seat strength or is faulty in other ways fails. When a vehicle is struck from the rear, its seats should be strong enough to stay upright and keep the occupants in place even as the force of impact moves the car forward and then jolts the passengers backwards. Unfortunately, this isn't always what happens and when seatback failure does occur, the driver can lose control of the auto, occupants may be ejected partially or completely from the vehicle or tossed around inside the auto, those riding in the rear seat can be fatally crushed or killed in a front seat collapse, or the collapsed seats may end up blocking the car doors or windows and eliminating all exits.

Unfortunately, current safety standards for car seats are not tough enough and they have not been updated in more than 3 decades. Car seats only have to pass a strength requirement and despite their known failure rate during National Highway Traffic Safety Administration impact tests, they are not subject to a crash test rating.

That said, regardless of what the current auto seat standard is, it is the responsibility of automakers and seat manufacturers to make sure that their car seats are not weak and prone to failure during an auto accident.

LA Woman Awarded $24M after Crash Collapses Her Car Seat, My Fox LA, April 18, 2011

New study supports case for stronger seats, The Safety Record, July 2, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Hyundai Ordered to Pay $1.8 Million Auto Products Liability Verdict for Teenager's Wrongful Death Caused by Poorly Designed Car Seat, Product Liability Law Blog, May 15, 2010

Ford Motor Co. and Woman Paralyzed in SUV Accident Involving Rear Seat Latch Failure Reach Auto Products Liability Settlement, Product Liability Law Blog, January 11, 2010

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

Continue reading "$24.7M California Auto Products Liability Judgment Awarded in Seatback Collapse that Left Woman a Paraplegic" »

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and Kmart have settled three products liability lawsuits over patio furniture that the plaintiffs said either injured or amputated their fingers. The terms of the defective furniture settlements are confidential.

However, all three complaints claimed that the legs of the lounge chairs act like "a guillotine" for hands and fingers that may get stuck between the chair and its legs. They contend that the legs are defective and are prone to snapping forward. The plaintiffs include a 67-year-old woman, who lost two fingers, a 22-year-old college student, whose right ring finger was amputated, and a girl, then age 4, whose left pinky fingertip was snipped off.

Just last week, phil&teds USA Inc. and the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 54,000 "metoo" Clip-on Chairs over concerns that these child seats pose a fall and an amputation hazard. Of the numerous reports of injuries, two of them involved the amputation, laceration, pinching, or crushing of kids' fingers. The risk of serious head injuries during fall accidents was also a concern. It was just this May that the CPSC issued an alert warning consumers to stop using the chairs because they were dangerous.

Last month, approximately 20,000 Task Force 5-ton electric log splitters were recalled by the the CPSC and Changzhou Globe Tool Group Co. Ltd. because the product poses amputation and laceration risks to consumers that place hands on the splitter's handle while its in operation. At least two people have suffered finger injuries, including an 18-year-old whose fingertip was amputated.

Of course, who could forget the recall of about 1 million Maclaren double and single umbrella strollers following reports of of a number of kids sustaining amputation injuries in 2009. For a product made for children to be unsafe enough that the boy/girl risks finger amputation is unacceptable. In early 2010, Graco also recalled 1.5 million strollers following fingertip amputations and lacerations to kids.

Fingertip Amputation
Fingertip amputations are incredibly painful and they can cause disfigurement and disability. Hopefully, the fingertip can be reattached or repaired, but this can also be a very painful procedure. A person who uses his/hands hands for employment purposes may not be able to work for a while, which can lead to additional financial losses.

You want to work with experienced products liability lawyers that know how to help the victims of defective or dangerous products obtain damages from the manufacturer, seller, and/or distributor responsible for a faulty product that caused personal injury or wrongful death. There is no acceptable reason for why you or your child should get hurt because of a defective product. Even if the manufacturer wasn't negligent, you may still be able to recover damages for injuries or a death caused by a product.

3 Settle Injury Lawsuits Over Martha Stewart Chair, Insurance Journal, August 15, 2011

Consumer Product Safety Commission

More Blog Posts:
Recall of 1.5 Million Graco Strollers Following Fingertip Lacerations and Amputations, Product Liability Law Blog, January 20, 2011

Injuries to Children: Maclaren Recalls About 1 Million Strollers After Children Injured During Finger Amputations, Product Liability Law Blog, November 10, 2009

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

Earlier this year, our auto products liability law firm wrote about efforts by the California Assembly to prevent Hertz, Enterprise, Avis, and other car rental companies from selling or renting motor vehicles that had been recalled unless the necessary repairs were already made. The bill was introduced after Raechel and Jacqueline Houck died in a car crash because their PT cruiser rental had a power steering defect that increased the risk of an engine fire occurring. Raechel, 24, lost control of the vehicle, which then collided with a semi-truck on the 101 Freeway and burst into flames. A jury later awarded the family $15 million in their auto products liability lawsuit against Enterprise.

The bill, AB753, passed the General Assembly and will be voted on by the California senate. Meantime, this safety issue involving car rental companies and recalled vehicles has gone national.

Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) recently introduced in the US Senate the "Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act of 2011," which also bars unrepaired, recalled vehicles from being rented or sold to consumers. If this legislation passes, state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission would enforce the provisions.

Both bills would close a loophole that currently lets vehicle rental companies rent or sell unrepaired recalled vehicles without breaking any laws--unlike auto dealers who cannot sell a recalled vehicle unless the safety issue has been fixed. Also, under Schumer's new measure, the NHTSA would have to execute two studies.

One study would look into claims that there are auto rental companies that are purposely ordering new vehicles without certain safety features, such as side air bags. Buyers and renters were reportedly not notified that these types of orders were made. The other study would look at rental companies' sales practices between when the NHTSA announces an auto recall and when the company is officially notified that a recall was issued. Right now, there are more than 1.6 million rental cars available for use in the US.

Meantime, the car rental industry is fighting these lawmakers' measures. Opponents of the bills say that incidents of recalled autos being rented out before the safety issue is fixed are "infrequent" and that some auto defects are not serious enough to require their immediate repair.

Considering that even a seemingly minor safety issue can cause a catastrophic car crash, this perspective is surprising. One need only look at the number of people who die every year because a vehicle malfunctioned or a safety defect either caused a collision or failed to protect the vehicle occupant during a crash.

SCHUMER INTRODUCES BILL THAT WOULD BAN RENTAL CAR COMPANIES FROM RENTING RECALLED VEHICLES TO CONSUMERS, Schumer.Senate.Gov, July 28, 2011

Car rental companies: Driven to danger, Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2011

Related Web Resources:
RAECHEL AND JACQUELINE HOUCK SAFE RENTAL CAR ACT OF 2011, GPO.com

NHTSA

More Blog Posts:
Auto Defects: California Assembly Approves Bill that Would Bar Rental Car Companies from Selling or Renting Out Recalled Vehicles Until They Are Repaired, Product Liability Law Blog, April 28, 2011

New York Tire Blowout: 2 Killed in Tour Bus Crash Carrying Indian Tourists, Product Liability Law Blog, July 27, 2011

Wrongful Death Trial Over Utah Toyota Sudden Acceleration Lawsuit is Scheduled for 2013, Product Liability Law Blog, June 17, 2011

Continue reading "Fight to Stop Rental Companies From Selling or Renting Vehicles with Auto Defects Goes National" »

It is important to note that just because a vehicle has been recalled doesn't mean it is defect-free and sometimes, it can take a motor vehicle crash for an auto defect to be discovered and a recall announced. In an ideal world, safety issues would be detected before anyone were to get hurt. If you believe that a car accident resulting in serious injury or death was caused by a vehicle malfunction or an auto defect, you may have grounds for pursuing a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. Contact our auto products liability law firm right away and ask for your free case evaluation.

Recent Auto Recalls:
Honda recently recalled 2.5 million vehicles because problems with the automatic transmission could cause the engine to unexpectedly cut out or the parking gear to malfunction. This risk is greatest if quick transmission shifts are made between the drive, neutral, and reverse positions. The transmission control modules in these autos will have to be reprogrammed. The automaker says that no injuries or deaths related to this safety problem have been reported. Affected vehicles include the 2005-2008 Element, the 2007-2010 CR-V, and 2005-2010 Accords (models with cylinder engines).

Meantime, air bag safety issues and pressure from the NHTSA have prompted Ford to recall another 1.2 million pickup trucks. The automaker had recalled approximately 135,000 F-150's (2005-2006 models) in the US earlier this year over concerns that the air bag on the driver's side might deploy without warning. Although Ford had said the original recall was sufficient to address the problem, the NHTSA accused the car manufacturer of distorting the data and said that based on its own review, the Ford trucks had the most number of inadvertent air bag deployments it had ever encountered. Ford, however, refuses to call the problem an actual air bag defect.

Ford is not the only automaker to recently announce a recall recently over a problem with air bags. Chrysler has recalled over 367,000 2008 Dodge and Chrysler minivans because their air bags may go off without warning. This is an expansion of a recall announced earlier this year over the same auto defect.

It was just several days ago that Toyota is recalling 32 of its 2011 Lexus Rx350 vehicles because of a brake problem that could cause an auto accident. The SUVs brake actuators are not calibrated correctly, which could stop the brakes on the right front wheel from being applied properly when vehicle stability control or automatic anti-lock braking is activated.

Volvo is also recalling some of its vehicles. The automaker says over 8,000 of its S60s that were made between March 8, 2006 and May 16, 2007 are affected. Volvo says that the vehicle could become hard to maneuver if there is an increase of pressure that impacts the power steering reservoir hoses, which are not correctly routed. The car manufacturer will replace the hoses for free.

In other auto recall news, Nissan says no accidents have been linked to safety issue involving 20,000 of its Altima cars (2011, 2012) in the US. Some of the autos may have transverse link bolts that weren't correctly tightened. If they come completely loose completely, a driver could have a hard time controlling the vehicle.

While no injuries or deaths have been linked to these latest recalls, these safety problems can cause car crashes. You want to work with an auto defects law firm that knows how to determine and prove liability and isn't afraid to go after a major auto manufacturer to make sure that you obtain all the personal injury or wrongful death compensation that you are owed. At the Gilbert Law Group, we represent clients nationally and have recovered over $150 million in verdicts and settlements for injured consumers. We even have an in-house engineering staff to assist our auto defects lawyers with their products liability cases.

Related Web Resources:
Nissan recalls about 20,000 Altima sedans in the U.S., Reuters, August 1, 2011

Toyota recalls 2011 Lexus RX 350 for brake issues, Consumer Reports, August 1, 2011

Honda To Recall 2.5 Million Cars on Software Issue, KTLA, August 6, 2011

Ford F-150 air bag recall expanded to 1.2 million trucks, Consumer Reports, April 15, 2011

Chrysler recalls 376,000 minivans for air bag defect, USA Today, August 4, 2011

Volvo recalls 8,406 S80s due to power steering problem, Consumer Reports, August 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Air Bag Safety Issue Prompts Ford to Expand Recall of F-150 Pickup Trucks to 1.2 Million, Product Liability Law Blog, April 14, 2011

Toyota Recalls 245,000 Lexus in the US, Product Liability Law Blog, January 26, 2011

More than 19 Million Autos Recalled in 2010 in About 600 Campaigns, Product Liability Law Blog, December 29, 2010

With Tiki torches and citronella candles now being replaced by firepots and fancy torches as the main illuminator during outdoor summer gatherings, consumers may have to worry about their safety. It turns out that the gel fuel used to light these more chic devices can be very dangerous—so dangerous that in certain situations igniting the fuel gel can cause it to behave like napalm and quickly envelope a person, sticking to his/her skin and clothing and refusing to be extinguished even when a blanket is wrapped around the victim. If you or someone who love has sustained burn injuries because of a dangerous or defective consumer item, you should contact our products liability lawyers right away and ask for your free case evaluation.

Burn injuries can be incredibly painful and they cause a great deal of suffering for the victim. Specialized medical care may be required to treat burn injury victims, costly medical procedures while still leaving the victim permanently disfigured.

Recently, one couple filed their Florida products liability complaint for burn injuries they sustained while using the NAPAfire and FIREGEL Pourable Gel Fuel with their firepots last June. Jacqueline Delgado sustained severe burns that left her in critical condition. Her husband Renee Delgado also suffered burns. Two weeks after their Florida burn accident, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall of approximately 460,000 pourable NAPAfire and FIREGEL products following reports of burn injuries by consumers who were hurt when the gel fuel ignited unexpectedly while being poured into a still burning firepot. The gel fuel's distributor, Napa Home & Garden, has since filed for bankruptcy protection. This means many of those who have sustained burn injuries from the product will be hard pressed to recover products liability damages from the company.

The Delgados, however, have decided to pursue Florida burn injury compensation from the packagers of the gel fuel, which was promoted as eco-friendly, the store that sold the firepots to Jacqueline, and the pharmacy where she purchased the fuel.

Others who have suffered serious burn injuries in similar accidents involving the gel fuel are a 14-year-old boy in New York and an Orlando man who died from his injuries. In two separate South Carolina burn injury accidents, four people are also blaming the gel fuel. Both South Carolina products liability lawsuits are alleging negligent design, testing, and manufacturing, and failure to warn about the risks involved.

Products Liability
Unfortunately, there are defective/dangerous products that can cause severe burn injuries to victims. Chemical burns, hot water burns, electrical burns, and fire burns are some of the burn injuries that can be caused by consumer goods. A manufacturer, supplier, or distributor doesn't have to have acted negligently to be held liable if someone got hurt because the product was unsafe for use or malfunctioned. There may be more than one party who should be sued for products liability and/or wrongful death.

Palm Beach County couple files lawsuit after burning incident, Sun-Sentinel/The Palm Beach Post, August 3, 2011

Napa Home & Garden Recalls NAPAfire and FIREGEL Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Fire and Burn Hazards, CPSC, June 22, 2011

Gel fuel poses extra dangers, Telegram.com, August 1, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Napa Home & Garden

Burns, MedlinePlus

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

Preventing Injuries to Children: Are Gas Fireplaces a Burn Hazard?, Product Liability Law Blog, March 8, 2010

Defective Clothing: Family Files $30 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Blair LLC After 80-Year-old Woman's Chenille Bathrobe Catches Fire, Product Liability Law Blog, November 16, 2009

Continue reading "Products Liability: Fire Gel Fuel Used in Firepots, Fancy Torches, and Personal Fireplaces Posing a Serious Burn Injury Hazard to Consumers" »