Product Liability Law Blog

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" »

Chastity Glisson's family is suing Toyota for Florida auto products liability and wrongful death. The 29-year-old died on August 25 from carbon monoxide poisoning when she left her Lexus running in her garage. Also nearly killed in the CO poisoning accident was Timothy Maddock, who was Glisson's boyfriend. He is suing the automaker for his debilitating injuries.

Glisson's mom Kimberlin Nickles says that the reason the tragic accident happened was because the Lexus's Smart Key system allowed the car to keep running silently. She says that her daughter either left the car running by accident or thought she had shut down the Lexus but in fact did not. Because Toyota designed the vehicle to be soundless and smooth, Glisson was not aware that the vehicle's engine was still running. It didn't help that she had brought the key fob into the house with her.

Nickles believes that Toyota's Smart Key system is a convenience that brings with it certain safety risks, such as the risk of CO if the vehicle is inadvertently kept running. She claims Toyota ignored such "foreseeable risks" and failed to install a switch that can automatically shuts down the vehicle.

Nickles is not the first person to complain about Smart Keys. Just last year, another woman filed her Toyota Smart Key lawsuit claiming New York auto products liability and personal injury. Mary Rivera says she sustained brain damage, can no longer walk, and suffers from communication and cognitive challenges because she was exposed to CO monoxide when she didn't shut down the car. She says that the Smart Key design's keyless ignition system makes it easy to forget to turn off the engine. Rivera now requires full-time care. Ernest Codelia Jr. died from the CO poisoning during that incident.

The Toyota Smart Key is a fob attached to a key ring that can start up a car automatically if it is within a certain rage of the vehicle. No actual key has to be inserted in the ignition.

Seeing potential safety hazard, regulators rethink ignition rule, BendBulletin, February 18, 2011

Smart Key Blamed for Another Death, Courthouse News, June 21, 2011

Examining the Drawbacks of Smart Key Fobs, NY Times, February 11, 2011

Examining the drawbacks of Smart Key Fobs, NY Times, February 11, 2011

Related Web Resource:
Toyota Motor Corporation

Safercar.gov

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

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

Two years after the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Connie Bergey is suing now defunct crib maker Simplicity for wrongful death. Her Florida furniture products liability lawsuit contends that a defect in the Simplicity 'Crib n Changer Combo, a drop side crib her daughter Serenity was using, is what caused her death.

Serenity's head got caught in the crib's frame. Two days after she died, a recall of over 1 million Simplicity cribs was issued that included the very same model that Serenity was using.

In her products liability lawsuit, Bergey is accusing Simplicty of knowingly selling cribs that were dangerously designed and endangering infants' lives. She contends that the Simplicity crib recall should have been announced before her daughter died. Her Florida wrongful death complaint says that when the crib's drop side came off, a gap was created, which caused the fatal entrapment accident. Bergey says she was devastated when she went to her daughter's crib and, rather than finding her sleeping peacefully, discovered her daughter stuck in the side of the crib.

Simplicity is no longer in operation. The crib maker was forced out of business following dozens of child injuries and at least four kid deaths from entrapment accidents involving its defective cribs.

Even after Simplicity shut its doors, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission continued to issue more recalls. In August 2008, 900,000 bassinets were recalled. Another 600,000 drop side cribs were recalled in September 2008. Just this January, the CPSC recalled 200,000 portable play yards.

There is no loss for a parent greater than the loss of a child. It can be even more devastating to discover that your son or daughter suffocated or died in a crib that you thought would keep your child safe.

While issuing product recalls has been known to save lives, a crib recall cannot bring back the life of the children who died prior to the recall announcement.

Some other crib design defect that have been known to cause injury:

• The crib slats are spaced too far apart that an infant's head or body can get stuck in between two slats.
• The crib's corner posts are designed in a manner that entanglement accidents can occur.
• The mattress is made from hazardous material or its size does not fit the crib securely enough to prevent entrapment accidents from happening.

Ffamily files lawsuit after child dies in crib, WPTV, September 9, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Simplicity for Children

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Choosing a crib, American Academy of Pediatrics

The widower and children of a woman who died in an SUV rollover accident last May are suing Toyota Corporation and Courtesy Toyota of Brandon for wrongful death. Elisa Obediente, 56, died after losing control of her vehicle on Interstate 75 in Florida. According to police, she over-corrected her steering to avoid hitting another vehicle when making a lane change and her 1998 Toyota 4Runner rolled over multiple times.

The Florida auto products liability lawsuit contends that the defendants neglected to properly protect Obediente during the rollover crash. The plaintiffs are claiming that the SUV had inherent defects that could have been easily remedied, including roof rails, windshield headers, and pillars that might have prevented the severe roof crushthat occurred if they were made stronger. Because the roof did collapse inward, Obediente was partially ejected from the vehicle.

The plaintiffs' Florida auto products liability lawyer maintains that Toyota could have easily installed Electronic Stability Control technology and that ESC could have helped the 56-year-old mother and wife to regain control of the car after over-steering. They also say other improvements could have been made at a low cost that might have prevented Obediente's death.

Also, the Federal Registry had reportedly completed a study ranking the 4Runner as the second car most likely in its class to be involved in a rollover crash, Yet, according to the plaintiffs, Toyota failed to reveal the rollover risks and even suggested that customers purchase a tire and wheel package that actually could increase the chances of a 4Runner rolling over. They also say that the defendants knew as far back as the late 1960's that these SUV's were susceptible to roof crushes but they misled the public into believing that they had strengthened their vehicles to withstand such accidents.

The Florida wrongful death lawsuit also is accusing the defendants of falsifying test results to come up with inaccurate rollover crush force minimums to make it appear as if certain auto parts had been strengthened against higher roof crush forces.

The plaintiffs are seeking wrongful death compensation, as well as compensation for loss of care, financial support, companionship, love, moral support, and comfort.

Products Liability
Auto products liability cases can be brought when a design defect, manufacturing defect, or marketing defect contributed to a car crash that resulted in personal injury or wrongful death.

Woman dies after SUV rolls over on I-75, TBO.com, May 24, 2009

Toyota 4Runner SUV Rollover Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Crash, About Lawsuits, August 10, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Toyota 4Runner Problems, AutoMotix.net

SUV Rollovers, BrainandSpinalCord.org