Product Liability Law Blog

In its fifth recall over the same auto defect since 2008, Honda is recalling another 273,00 motor vehicles because of a faulty air-bag deployment system. This latest announcement ups the number of autos affected to almost 2 million.

The safety issue involves the driver's side air bag, which could deploy in too forceful a manner during a crash. If this were to happen, the metal inflator casing, which holds explosive propellant, might rupture, causing pieces of shrapnel to burst forth to potentially kill the driver. Honda also will inspect another 603,000 motor vehicles to check whether defective parts were used to fix autos that had been involved in traffic crashes.

Two deaths and 18 injuries have been linked to this air bag safety issue. The automaker says it decided to announce another recall after finding out about yet another driver who had gotten hurt. Honda is calling this safety defect a "serious matter."

Air Bag Defects
Our air bag defect lawyers are familiar with the serious injuries that can result because this safety device malfunctioned. Air bags are there to protect vehicle occupants. They are supposed to deploy during serious crashes. When an airbag doesn't go off upon impact, this can cause serious injury to the victim, who may end up hitting the steering wheel or crashing through the windshield. If the airbag deploys at the wrong angle or too slowly this too can cause serious injuries. An air bag that goes off when it isn't supposed to, such as while the driver is on a freeway and hasn't been involved in the crash, can also prove dangerous. The driver, at this point, could end up involved in a traffic crash because he or she cannot see the road and may have a hard time maneuvering the vehicle with the air bag fully inflated in front of the steering wheeling or pushing against him/her from the side of the vehicle.

Car manufacturers know how important proper deployment of an air bag is to saving people's lives and it is their job to make sure that this safety device is free from any defects that could cause serious injuries or wrongful death. You should retain the serves of a personal injury law firm that that is experienced with dealing with auto products liability cases involving air bag defects.

Our air bag defect law firm is not afraid to pursue large auto manufacturers for damages on our clients' behalf. There is no reason why you need to foot your medical expenses and other related costs because an automaker was negligent.

Honda Adds 273,000 Vehicles to Long-Running Air Bag Recall, NY Times, December 2, 2011

More Hondas, Acuras to be recalled over deadly air bag problem, Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Texas Auto Products Liability: Air Bag Defect Lawsuit Seeks Damages from GM, Product Liability Law Blog, May 10, 2011

Honda Expands Air Bag Recall with Another 833,000 Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, May 3, 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

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened a formal probe into whether General Motors's Chevy Volts' batteries are at risk of catching fire after they are involved in a serious car crash. While GM has stated that its vehicle is not a fire hazard, the NHTSA remains committed to continuing its safety defect investigation until it reaches its own conclusions.

Safety officials began to worry about a possible fire risk after a Volt that was parked in a test facility caught fire, causing damage to other parked autos. That battery had been punctured and its coolant line ruptured during a side-impact collision test in May.

In the last several days, one of the Volt battery packs that was under observation following a crash test did catch fire, while another one that was also crash-tested let out sparks and smoke. Another battery that underwent a crash test several months ago also had burst into flames. (GM claims NHTSA failing to drain one of the batteries that caught fire of energy after crash-testing it, which is a step the automaker would have taken.)

The NHTSA says there have been no Volt-related fires in roadway crashes reported thus far. The Volt is one of 8,000 cars that are plug-in electric cars.

While testing of the Volt hasn't raised any red flags about other electric autos, the NHTSA does want auto manufacturers to offer more specific data about battery testing for these types of vehicles.

Auto Defects and Car Fires
Any auto that catches fire is dangerous for those in and around the vehicle. It is therefore essential that cars and their parts do not possess any auto defects that raise the risk of a car bursting into flames--especially following a traffic crash.

Couple an auto defect that is a fire hazard with a tank of gasoline and the consequences can prove catastrophic, further exacerbating any serious injuries that may have already been sustained by any victims. Rescue efforts may become hampered, as emergency workers attempt to stay alive while trying to pull the driver and any occupants from the motor vehicle.

If a crash victim is lucky enough to survive the car fire, he or she may have to cope with the excruciating pain that comes with serious burn injuries that can leave the victim seriously disfigured and disabled for life. Recovery can be a very long and costly process.

Our auto products liability law firm represent clients throughout the US that were injured as a result of safety defects that contributed to causing the serious personal injuries and wrongful deaths.

Statement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration On Formal Safety Defect Investigation of Post-Crash Fire Risk in Chevy Volts, NHTSA, November 25, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Illinois Auto Defect Lawsuit Blames Ford For Truck Fire That Burned House Down, Product Liability Law Blog, September 21, 2011

Auto Defects: Fire Hazards Prompt General Motors and Chrysler to Recall Vehicles, Product Liability Law Blog, June 8, 2010

Ford Recall and GM Chevrolet Fire Incidents Rekindle Fire Hazard Concerns, Product Liability Law Blog, February 13, 2008

Continue reading "NHTSA Probing Whether GM Chevrolet Volt's Lithium-Ion Batteries Pose a Fire Hazard" »

Each year, World Against Toys Causing Harm, Inc. puts out its "10 Worst Toys" list as a warning to consumers for products to avoid when shopping for the holiday season. Toys that made this year's list that pose specific child injury hazards include the:

• Twist 'n Sort
• Fold and Go Trampoline
• Power Rangers Samurai Mega Blade
• Pulling Animal Duck
• Z-Curve Bow
• Sword Fighting Jack Sparrow
• "Gigan" Godzilla Figure
• Stepper "Low Rise" Stilts
• The Incredible Shrinky Dinks Maker
• School Bus by Schylling

The dangers involved vary, but include choking hazards, the risk of impact injuries, strangulation risks, electrical shock and burn dangers, and the risk of puncture wounds. Our toy defect lawyers want to remind you that when choosing what toys to buy, consider the age of the child that you are buying for and whether the product is appropriate for their abilities and safe for them to use.

Unfortunately, every year, there are children that end up sustaining serious injuries because they were playing with a dangerous or defective toy. Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors can be held liable for products liability in these instances. There is absolutely no reason why an unsafe toy should be made available in the marketplace.

In addition to its 10 worst list, WATCH wants shoppers to watch out for toys that:
• Don't come with warnings, operating instructions, or age recommendations
• Have hair, fur, and other parts that can be ingested
• Include small pieces that can be easily swallowed (removable attachments, such as bells and beads fall under this category)
• Have pieces that shoot out, potentially posing a safety risk to the eyes
• Have pointed tips or sharp edges that can cut or pierce the skin
• Come with lengthy strings that may pose a strangulation hazard
• Are made with flammable materials
• Pose electrocution hazard
• Include toxic substances, such as lead or phthalates

The Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, which releases its annual Trouble in Toyland report each year, says that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for recalling any unsafe or defective toys, doesn't test all toys and not all of those that end up on store shelves meet the safety agency's standards. If you believe there is a dangerous toy out there or your child was injured because of a toy, you should report it to the CPSC, as well as contact our child products liability law firm immediately.

While tougher federal rules and new toy safeguards should mean there are less dangerous toys being sold now than ever before, one unsafe toy in the marketplace is one hazard too many. The CPSC says that last year, there were 17 child deaths involving toys--up from the 15 fatalities in 2009. Almost 50% of these deaths involved choking accidents. Also in 2010, 181,500 kids in the under 15 age group ended up in ERs because of injuries from toys.

2011 Dangerous Toy List, WATCH

Trouble in Toyland, PIRG

Consumer Product Safety Commission

More Blog Posts:
Swallowing High-Powered Magnets Can Be Deadly for Kids, Warns CPSC, Product Liability Law Blog, November 6, 2011

Little Tikes Recalls Another 1.7 Million Toy Workshop and Tool Sets Over Choking Hazard, Product Liability Law Blog, October 6, 2011

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

The parents of a 4-month-old girl who died after she became entrapped in her portable baby recliner is seeking $75K in Michigan products liability damages from manufacturer Baby Matters LLC. The baby, Juliette Thiel, died on July 9, 2010 from asphyxiation.

The infant was found hanging from the Nap Nanny's side while her face had gotten caught between the recliner and the crib bumper. In their Michigan wrongful death complaint, Brian and Mako Thiel accused the manufacturer of failing to make sure there were proper warning labels that came with the infant recliner cautioning against suffocation injuries.

Following Juliette's fatal accident, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 30,000 Nap Nanny recliners. The federal safety agency said the recliners posed fall, entrapment, and suffocation hazards. CPSC and Baby Matters also reported that there had been least one other known incident of a an infant entrapment accident happening while the Nap Nanny was being used in crib. That baby, who fell over the recliner's side, got caught between the Nap Nanny and the crib's side and sustained a head cut. Additionally, 22 reports involving harnessed infants falling out of or hanging over the Nap Nanny's side were filed.

In their Michigan child products liability lawsuit, the Thiels are contending that not only are there two patents indicating that the Nap Nanny was made to be used in a crib, but also, product marketing materials prior to March 2010 promote that the child recliner be used this way. The CPSC has since advised that the Nap Nanny not be used inside a crib, play yard, or another confined space. Placing the Nap Nanny on an elevated surface is also not recommended because the baby might fall out.

The Thiels say that as early as March 2010, the CPSC told Baby Matters it was looking into whether the Nap Nanny had defects. At the time, the manufacturer said denied this. However, the couple says that in May 2010, the CPSC found that the Nap Nanny was defective, came with a harness that did not properly restrain infants or keep them secure, and if used in a crib placed the baby at risk of becoming entrapped and suffocating. Warning labels and directions also were found inadequate. Juliette died two months later. Her parents are seeking over $75,000 in Michigan wrongful death damages.

Manufacturers are supposed to warn of any safety risks that come with using a product. This includes making sure that a product comes with the appropriate warning labels and operating instructions. It would be even better if products did not have any design defects that made them dangerous for children and infants to use--especially while they are asleep and unsupervised.

Couple sues firm in death of infant, The Detroit News, November 19, 2011

Baby Matters Recalls Nap Nanny® Recliners Due to Entrapment, Suffocation and Fall Hazards; One Infant Death Reported, CPSC, July 26, 2010

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

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

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

A federal court in New Jersey says that retailers can indeed be held strictly liable for selling defective products. The case is DeGennaro v. Rally Manufacturing.

In this New Jersey products liability case, the plaintiff sued the manufacturer and seller of a lead-acid battery that he said exploded while in his hand. The judge found that Pep Boys' management either should have or already knew that the battery was at risk of exploding because it had heat-sealed packaging. The court therefore determined that Pep Boys could not avail of the safe harbor provisions that protect sellers for being liable for products liability.

Under the New Jersey Product Liability Act, there are safe harbor provisions that under certain conditions protect product sellers. To avail of these, the seller must be able to identify the maker from whom damages should be sought and cannot have created the product defect. However, if a seller knew/should have known that the product was defective, then safe harbor cannot be obtained. In DeGennaro, not only was there evidence that Pep Boys knew about the defect but also, despite this knowledge, the store kept selling the battery.

Generally, someone who is injured by a defective product can hold the seller liable. One reason for this is that liability can occur during any point in the chain of distribution and production, which means that not just the manufacturer may be found responsible. It is also uncommon for the product's distributor to be held accountable for products liability resulting in personal injury. Damages can even be obtained if a product was misused if that wrong usage was foreseeable.

A defect can be one involving the product's design (known as a design defect), one that occurs while the product was being manufactured, (manufacturing defect), or after it has been created (likely a marketing defect). The majority of products liability cases are considered strict liability cases. Strict liability lets a plaintiff obtain damages from an injury that was caused by a product without having to prove that the defendant engaged in wrongdoing. In states where strict liability is no longer allowed, a plaintiff may have to prove that the defendant was negligent. This includes showing there was a relationship between the plaintiff and the manufacturer, that the latter owed the former a duty of care, and this duty had been breached, resulting in injury to the plaintiff.

Retailers are liable when they sell defective goods, court reaffirms, The Sacramento Bee, November 16, 2011

DeGennaro v. Rally Manufacturing

More Blog Posts:
Swallowing High-Powered Magnets Can Be Deadly for Kids, Warns CPSC, Product Liability Law Blog, November 10, 2011

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

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

Continue reading "Retailers Can Be Held Strictly Liable for Sale of Defective Products, Reaffirms Federal Court" »

Once again, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is warning parents and guardians to watch out that their kids don't swallow any magnets. The latest advisory focuses on high-powered magnets, in particular, and comes following a rise in the number of related child injuries reported in the past two years.

In 2009, the CPSC says there was just one incident involving high-powered ball-bearing magnets reported. However, that number went up to 7 in 2010 and there have been at least 14 already reported this year. Magnet ingestion occurred in 17 of the incidents, while surgery (including repair to intestines or the stomach) was required to remove the magnets on 11 of the occasions. The person to sustain this type of child injury was 18 months, while the oldest was age 15.

High-Powered Magnets
These magnets and magnet parts are often small enough to swallow and are not allowed to be used in kid and infant products. They can be found in desk toys for adults and/or are used as stress relievers. High-powered magnets are usually sold in 200-piece sets.

Because the small pieces do separate, it is not unusual for a toddler to get hold of one and put it in his/her mouth. Teenagers and younger kids have also been known to swallow or inhale the small magnet pieces either accidentally or on purpose.

Swallowing Magnets
That said, swallowing any kind of magnet can cause serious injuries, including intestinal blockage, holes in the intestines and stomach, blood poisoning, and death. If two magnetic parts are swallowed, they can be drawn toward each other through the walls of the intestine and that is when the serious injuries can occur. This is why it is so important that manufacturers make products that don't pose this type of injury risk.

In April 2007, the CPSC reported that it had received hundreds of complaints of magnet pieces falling out of toys. At the time, it said that it knew of at least 33 incidents involving kids swallowing the magnet pieces and having to undergo emergency surgery. The CPSC even recalled over eight million products with magnet pieces that could come loose.

Our products liability lawyers represent the families of children that were injured by a defective product or one that wasn't designed safely enough to prevent serious injuries or deaths. We know how upsetting it can be to find out that your child got hurt because another party was negligent and we are here to help our clients obtain financial recovery from those responsible.

There are steps you can take to prevent magnet-related injuries, including:
• Keep them away from kids
• Make sure that any small magnet pieces haven't come loose

If you believe your son/daughter may have swallowed a magnet piece, get medical help right away.

CPSC Warns High-Powered Magnets and Children Make a Deadly Mix, CPSC, November 10, 2011

Ingested Magnets Can Cause Serious Intestinal Injuries, CPSC (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Little Tikes Recalls Another 1.7 Million Toy Workshop and Tool Sets Over Choking Hazard, Product Liability Law Blog, October 6, 2011

MEGA Brands and Battat Recall 2.4 Million China-Made Toys with Magnets, Product Liability Law Blog, March 17, 2008

Latest Magnetic Building Kit Recall Is A Reminder That Swallowing Magnets Can Cause Serious Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, January 29, 2008

Continue reading "Swallowing High-Powered Magnets Can Be Deadly for Kids, Warns CPSC" »