Product Liability Law Blog

Another six companies are recalling their pourable gel fuel products over concerns that they may cause burn injuries to consumers. It was just last month that nine other manufacturers recalled more than 2 million units of pourable gel units following reports of serious injuries and deaths.

The gel fuel can ignite when being poured into a still lit firepot. In the event that the fuel was to splatter, landing on people, objects, and the surrounding area, flash fires can erupt, causing serious burn injuries.

Already, there have been at least 65 incidents reported. 28 of them resulted in 37 burn injuries. These flash fires can be hard to extinguish. A person on fire because of a gel fuel cannot just "stop, drop, and roll." Dousing the victim with water won't necessarily do the job either and trying to pat the fire off him/her can cause the flames to spread onto the person attempting to make a rescue. According the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a BC-rated or ABC-rated dry powder/chemical fire extinguisher is your best bet.

Burns injuries to the face, hands, chest, arms, and legs and at least two deaths have occurred from these accidents. Recent injury victims include a 14-year-old who went into a coma and needed a ventilator to stay alive. Two male adult friends sustained numerous burn injuries during the same incident. One of the victims, 24, already has had multiple surgeries to treat his burns.

One couple recently filed a Florida products liability lawsuit over their burn injuries from using a NAPAfire and FIREGEL Gel Fuel, which also has recalled its gel fuel products. Because that company has sued for bankruptcy, they are not pursuing damages against it. They are, however, going after the sellers of the gel fuel and firepot and the company that packaged the product.

Remember, that there may be more than one party that can be held liable for burn injuries caused by a defective product. Depending on the specifics of your case, manufacturers, sellers, retailers, those in charge with packaging and marketing the products, and distributors are just some of the possible defendants.

List of manufacturers that have recalled their pourable gel fuel products:
• Napa Home & Garden, which recently declared bankruptcy
• Smart Solar Inc.
Pacific Décor Ltd.
• Lamplight Farms Inc.
• Sunjel Company
• Bird Brain Inc.
• Real Flame of Racine
• Luminosities Inc.
• Fuel Barons Inc.
• Bond Manufacturing
• Husqvarna Zenoah Co. Ltd.
• Luminosities/Windflame Inc.
• Smart Solar Inc.
• Real Flame
• Fuel Barons
• Bond Manufacturing Co.

You want to work with a products liability law firm that knows how to prove that a company was negligent.

Recalls, CPSC

Nine Manufacturers, Distributors Announce Consumer Recall of Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash Fire Hazards, CPSC, September 1, 2011

Calls to ban gel fuel heat up, Chicago Tribune, August 10, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Burns, Medline Plus

Products Liability, Justia

More Blog Posts:
Products Liability: Fire Gel Fuel Used in Firepots, Fancy Torches, and Personal Fireplaces Posing a Serious Burn Injury Hazard to Consumers, Product Liability Law Blog, August 3, 2011

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

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

Continue reading "More Pourable Gel Fuel Recalled by Manufacturers" »

Nearly a decade after finding out that table saws can cause serious injuries to users, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is now ready to talk about creating tougher safety standards for these products. The delay comes after years of bureaucratic hurdles, extensive study into the matter, and other regulatory work.

Table saws cause about 10 finger amputations a year. Fractures are also a common table saw-related injury, with laceration injuries the most common. Also, per a recent CPSC study, in 2007 and 2008 about 66,900 people were treated at an emergency room for table saw blade contact injuries. If you or someone you love suffered an injury from using a table saw you may be able to file a products liability complaint against the manufacturer. Hundreds of table saw lawsuits have already been filed by injury victims and their families.

Last year, a jury awarded a $1.5 million Massachusetts appliance defect verdict to Carlos Osorio, who injured his fingers while using a table saw when laying hardwood floors. One World Technologies Inc. was found guilty of breach of warranty of merchantability and negligence. Because the table saw accident severed two of his tendons, Osorio's hand is now stuck in one fixed position. The plaintiff's table saw attorneys had argued that if SawStop, (a blade outfitted with technology that stops when it sense a body part) had been implemented with this particular product, then Osorio's hand would have been saved.

Stephen Gass, is the inventor of SawStop. Although he was the one who convinced the CPSC to accept his petition for rulemaking in 2002 when President Bush was president, since the Commission didn't draft the rule then, a new vote will have to be made now. The CPSC will also have to be careful to consider whether regulation it comes up with will limit market place competition in favor of Gass's "flesh-sensing" technology. Next month, the federal agency will vote on whether to initiate first steps toward mandatory regulation.

Meantime, the Power Tool Institute, which represents table saw manufacturers, says that the saws' blade guards have since been improved so that they protect against injuries. It also says that this year, no new table saw lawsuits have so far been filed.

More Table Saw Injury/Accident Facts from the CPSC's 2009 study:

• 95.7% of injuries were sustained by table saw operators.
• 88% of injuries involved contact with the saw blade.
• Fixed cabinet saws, semiportable contractor saws, and portable bench saws have all been known to cause injuries.
• In 78.7% of injury incidents, the table saw lacked a safety switch. In numerous instances, the blade had been removed for the sake of convenience.
• Avulsions, abrasions, and contusions are examples of other table saw injuries.
• Aside from the fingers and hands, injuries to the eyes, head, face, and wrists were also reported.

According to the National Consumers League, table saw injuries cause accident victims about $31,000/year.

Table saw manufacturers can be held liable for failing to do everything possible make a product that is safe for use, not warning about possible dangers, or not including instructions to ensure safe use.

Survey of Injuries Involving Stationary Table Saws, CPSC (PDF)

Table Saw Injuries Out of Control, National Consumers League says, Consumer Chronicle, May 25, 2011

Consumer Product Safety Commission to discuss stricter regulations for table saws, The Washington Post, September 23, 2011

CPSC wants to stop daily table saw amputations, USA Today, February 2, 2011

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

Products Liability Settlements Reached In Furniture Defect Lawsuits Against Martha Stewart and Kmart Over Patio Chairs That Caused Finger Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, August 20, 2011

Treadmill Accident: Mike Tyson's Daughter Dies After Her Neck Gets Caught in Exercise Machine Cord, Product Liability Law Blog, May 30, 2009

Continue reading "CPSC Now Ready to Talk About Tougher Safety Regulations for Table Saws " »

According to the National Drowning Prevention Alliance, between May 1 and August 26, there were more than 1,500 drowning deaths reported. A recent survey also noted that more than one US state -Minnesota, Indiana, and Pennsylvania--hit a record when it came to drowning deaths this year.

While generally, the number of drowning-related fatalities has gone down, drowning continues to be the number two cause of deaths for kids in the under 15 age group. That said, Pool & Spa News has said that up to 10% of drowning-linked deaths in a state can go unreported. One reason for this is that the death may occur days after the incident. An example of this would be respiratory failure triggered by near drowning.

Other statistics for this 5/11-8/26/11 time period:
• Almost 85% of the victims were male
• Over 400 of those that died were kids under age 13

According to a recent American Red Cross survey conducted earlier this year, almost 80% of respondents said they intended to get into the water this summer. However 20% considered their swimming skills to be limited.

Child Drowning Accidents
Our drowning accident lawyers represents clients in all US states. Unfortunately, swimming pools, hot tubs, and wading pools can be dangerous places for kids if there is inadequate supervision, the child cannot swim well, there is no rescue equipment in the area, the pool's drain is not one that meets federal safety standards, the water is too murky, or the area surrounding the pool is so poorly maintained that the risk of slip and fall accidents goes up.

For every child who is the victim of pool drowning, four other kids will end up hospitalized from a near drowning accident. 15% of them will end up dying from related complications while at least 20% will sustain a traumatic brain injury that can cost his/her family up to $200,000 a year for the rest of the victim's life.

You may be able to pursue damages against a negligent pool or hot tub owner or the property owner where the pool or spa is located.

Reasons why you may be able to sue for the swimming pool accident (the state where you pursue your lawsuit will have an influence on the type of claim you would be allowed to bring):

Simple negligence,which can include poor pool maintenance, inadequate supervision, failure to put up barriers to keep kids out when the pool is unattended.

Willful or wanton misconduct, which can involve a defendant that has engaged in behavior that any reasonable person would consider conduct endangering a child.

Attractive Nuisance: Landowners are responsible for children who get hurt by anything on the premise that might have attracted them.

National Drowning Prevention Alliance

Pool Safely

Summer Drownings Spur Call to Action, Aquatics International, September 2011

More Blog Posts:
Inflatable Pools Pose Significant Drowning Risk to Young Children, Says American Academy of Pediatrics, Product Liability Law Blog, June 13, 2011

CPSC Warns that Water Walking Balls Pose Drowning, Impact Injury, and Suffocation Dangers, Product Liability Law Blog, March 31, 2011

Mother Files $12.5M Oregon Child Injury Lawsuit After Daughter Nearly Drowns in Pool, Product Liability Law Blog, March 9, 2011

Continue reading "More Than 1500 Drowning Deaths Reported This Season" »

A woman whose trailer home caught on fire when her neighbor's Ford F-150 pickup caught fire is suing the automaker for Illinois automotive products liability. Guadalupe Mendez lost her home on September 12, 2006. At the time, the trailer house, which she had bought four years before, was nearly paid off. Losing her house left her and her two sounds, then 13 and 9, with a car and the clothes on their back.

In her Illinois auto defect lawsuit, Mendez Is accusing Ford of knowing that there was something wrong with the switch for the truck's cruise control system but doing nothing to remedy the problem. Mendez's believes that this auto defect is what started the fire.

Mendez is not the first person to file an auto products liability complaint against Ford over this safety issue. Similar auto defect lawsuits have been filed in Texas, Michigan, and San Francisco. Also a defendant in Mendez's complaint is Texas Instruments, which manufactured the switch.

Per Mendez's Illinois auto defect complaint, the fire, which gutted the Ford F-150, likely occurred because of a defect in the cruise control system that allows electrical current to run through the switch even when the vehicle isn't on. Also, even though only one-half amp of power is required by the system, it is constantly getting 15 amps of power, which can cause it to overheat and a fire to start up in parked pickups.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recalled about 17.5 million Ford autos in the last 12 years for issues linked to the faulty control system. However, the NHTSA believes that there still may be several million vehicles with this auto defect that are currently in use. Many Ford owners may not be aware their vehicle has this safety issue--especially if they bought their autos second-hand.

A car fire can be incredibly dangerous for the occupants in a vehicle and those in the area at the time. A motor vehicle that catches fire is at serious risk of exploding--especially when the gas tank is involved. This can lead to not just the destruction of the vehicle but to serious burn injuries and even deaths.

The Ford F-150 is not the only Ford vehicle that has been linked to faulty cruise control systems. Other Ford autos that have been recalled:

• Excursion ('00 and '03 models)
• Mazda-B-Series ('98-'02 models)
• Navigator ('98-'02 models)
• Expedition ('97 to '02 models)
• Windstar ('95-'03 models)
• Mountaineer ('95-02' models)
• Explorer Sport and Sport Trac ('01-'02 models)
• Explorer (95'-02 models)
• Ranger (''95 - 03 models)
• Mercury Capri ('94 models)
• F53 Motorhome ('94-'02 models)
• Bronco ('93-'96 models)
• Mark VIII ('93-'98 models)
• Taurus SHO ('93-'95 models)
• F Series (>8500GVW Diesel) ('93-'97, '99-'03 models)
• Blackwood ('02-'03 models)
• Lightning ('03-'04 models)
• F Series (150-550) ('93-'03 models)
• Crown Victory/Grand Marquis/Town Car ('92-'98 models)
• E Series (Econolines) ('92-93 models)

Auto manufacturers can be held liable for auto defects that cause serious personal injuries or wrongful deaths. You want to work with an experienced auto products liability law firm that has the resources, knowledge, and team to help you recover the damages that you are owed.

Lawsuit: Defect in Ford's cruise control burned down Aurora home, The Beacon-News/Chicago Sun-Times, September 22, 2011

NHTSA Repeats Caution to Owners of Various Recalled Ford Vehicles on Fire Risk, NHTSA, October 21, 2010

Center for Auto Safety

More Blog Posts:
Ford and Chrysler Among Latest Automakers to Recall Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, January 3, 2011

Ford Recall and GM Chevrolet Fire Incidents Rekindle Fire Hazard Concerns,
Product Liability Law Blog, February 13, 2011

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

According to a study published in the journal Pediatrics, the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants may cause 4-year-old to develop short-term attention and learning difficulties. The findings come from an observation of 60 children assigned at random to watch "SpongeBob," the carton "Caillou," or draw pictures for nine minutes. Kids were tested for their mental functions after this. The ones that had been assigned to watch "SpongeBob" performed the worst, scoring on average about 12 points less than the other children. The kids in the other group received nearly the same scores. Also, When tested for impulsiveness and self-control, the kids who watched "Sponge Bob" that were shown snacks were only able to wait about 2 ½ minutes before eating them while the other kids were able to wait about four minutes.

Researchers say that considering that cartoons usually run about 22 minutes, if watching SpongeBob is impairing children's attention then watching the entire show could prove "more detrimental." They did, however, say that more evidence is required to verify these concerns.

In response to the study, Nickelodeon spokesperson David Bittler noted that "SpongeBob" is geared toward kids in the 6-11 age group and not 4 year olds. The lead author of the study, University of Virginia psychology professor Angeline Lillard, however, said that kids age 4 were selected because this is the age group when the most development occurs.

Lillard, says that "SpongeBob" isn't the only program that could be cause for parental concern. She reported similar problems with children that watched other cartoons that were fast-paced. She is advising that kids not be allowed to watch these shows whenever they are supposed to learn or pay attention.

It was just four years ago that a study, also published in the Journal of Pediatrics, raised concerns that for every hour of the day that kids in the 8-16 month age group watched educational "Baby Einstein" videos, they ended up with 6-8 less words in their vocabulary than other children the same age. This finding is obviously not what parents who let their kids watch these videos want for them. Also, Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development director Dr. Dimitri Christakis at the University of Washington in Seattle has said that bombarding a child's brain, which is still developing, with too much stimulation can affect his/her ability to learn how to focus correctly.

Child Injuries and Kids' Products
Do you believe that your son or daughter suffered physical, emotional, or mental injuries because a product proved defective or dangerous? Unfortunately, there are many products still out in the market that can hurt kids even though these products are supposed to be made for children.

Our products liability law firm knows how upsetting it can be to find out that you've inadvertently exposed your child to a danger that caused them to get hurt. We help families throughout the US recover child injury compensation from negligent manufacturers, sellers, and distributors.

SpongeBob study: Do fast-paced cartoons impair kids' thinking?, Christian Science Monitor, September 12, 2011

Study: Some cartoons are bad for children's brains, CNN, September 12, 2011

Study faults 'Einstein' videos for infants, Boston.com, August 8, 2007

Related Web Resources:
Pediatrics

Sponge Bob

Baby Einstein

More Blog Posts:
New Crib Safety Standards Go Into Effect Today, Product Liability Law Blog, June 28, 2011

Texas Playground Accident Lawsuit Seeks Damages from McDonald's Chain Owners, Product Liability Law Blog, July 29, 2011

Crib Bumpers: Are They Safe for Babies?, Product Liability Law Blog, April 30, 2011

The parents of a teenage girl are suing General Motor for her Texas SUV rollover accident injuries. The teen and other students were riding a Chevrolet Suburban in 2007 when the teacher, who was driving the vehicle, lost control of the sport utility vehicle, which then rolled over.

Even though she was properly restrained, Rachel and Matt Blalock's daughter was thrown from the SUV. Another teenager who was also ejected from the vehicle (police reports say she wasn't wearing a seat belt), died.

In their Texas auto products liability complaint, the Blalocks claim that the SUV did not provide adequate restraint or sufficient occupant protection from rollover accident. They also believe that the Chevy Suburban, which they contend was dangerous and defective, lacked the adequate safeguards to prevent ejection. They are accusing General Motors of failing conduct adequate engineering analysis or testing.

The Blalocks are seeking damages for their daughter's mental trauma, emotional distress, pain and suffering, disfigurement, impairment, medical costs, loss of earning capacity, loss of consortium, and other damages.

SUV Rollover Lawsuits
If you or someone you love was injured in an SUV rollover crash, the sooner you retain the services of an experienced auto products liability law firm that knows how to pursue your recovery, the better. There is a lot of evidence that will need to be gathered and preserved, as well as many questions that witnesses, accident reconstructionists, other experts, police, doctors, and others will have to answer.

Unfortunately, there are auto defects and deficiencies can result in the failure to protect occupants during a rollover crash. Motor vehicle manufactures know this and it is their job to make sure that they do everything possible so that passengers aren't seriously injured or killed. Proper seat belt protection and roofs that are solid enough that they won't result in collapse (known as "roof crush"), and advanced window glazing to protect occupants during impact, are among the safety features that can be implemented.

Ejection Mitigation
Studies show that occupants that aren't ejected from an auto during a collision have a higher survival rate. Fortunately, beginning in 2013, car manufacturers will have to start installing "ejection mitigation" systems in all motor vehicles. All new autos will have to include this feature by 2018. This means better side air bags and window glazing. Also per the new NHTSA-issued rule, motor vehicles weighing less than 10,000 lbs will have to establish a countermeasure that would stop unbelted adults from being able to go 4 inches beyond the opening of a side window during a collision. NHTSA says about 476 serious injuries and 373 deaths could be prevented every year with these new safety measures.

Lawsuit against GM filed over deadly Suburban rollover, Southeast Texas Record, August 15, 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation Issues New Ejection Mitigation Rule, NHTSA, January 13, 2011

Related Web Resources:
NHTSA on Ejection Mitigation (PDF)

TOP SAFETY PICKS 2011, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

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

US 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, September 27, 2011