Product Liability Law Blog

With cold weather continuing to affect many parts of the US, people have been using their gas fireplaces to keep everyone indoors warm. Yet are the doors of some of these gas fireplaces poorly designed so that they pose a burn danger to kids?

According to the Children’s Hospital Burn Center, in the last five years, the number of hand burns caused by fireplace glass doors has gone up by 50% with an average of 2-3 burn victims coming in each week for treatment. One reason for this is that there are a lot of gas fireplace doors that lack protective screens.

It takes just six minutes for a fireplace door’s temperature to hit 200 degrees. The glass door may keep kids away from the fire, but they may still subject to second- and third- degree burns from coming into physical contact with the heat emanating from an extremely hot door.

Over the holiday season, one young boy sustained white blisters on his hands when he placed them on the glass doors of a fireplace. Following the Colorado burn accident, the boy was rushed to the hospital for treatment. Luckily, his injuries did not require skin grafting.

Burn Injuries
Burn injuries can be very painful and traumatic. Second-degree burns can affect both the dermis and the epidermis. Symptoms of a second-degree burn include swelling, redness, peeling skin, blisters, pain, charred skin, peeling skin, and shock. Immediate treatment is imperative, or a second-degree burn can become a third-degree burn. Third-degree burns affect both the external and internal skin layers. They can lead to scar injuries.

Manufacturers must make sure that any products they design are not dangerous for use and if there is an inherent hazard, then they must providing a warning label cautioning against how to prevent injury or death. Otherwise, the victim and his/her family can file a products liability lawsuit suing for personal injury damages. Young children are especially prone to injuries caused by hazardous or dangerous products.

If your child sustained a burn injury from coming into contact with a fireplace glass door, we invite you to contact our products liability law firm and ask to speak with one of our child injury lawyers immediately.

If you are using a gas fireplace with a glass door, the Children’s Hospital recommends that you:

• Place a screen or gate around the fireplace to block kids from touching the door.
• Watch your kids when they are near the fireplace.
• Remember that it takes a gas fireplace about 45 minutes to cool down completely after it has been shut off.

Cozy gas fireplace? Don't let it be a burn hazard, Denver Post, February 13, 2010

Gas Fireplace Glass Door Burn Prevention, Children'sHospital.org

Related Web Resources:
Burns, Medline Plus

Burns, KidsHealth.org

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Burn , Burn Injuries , Colorado , Furniture and Accessories , Household Appliances , Injuries to Children & Minors , States

Bookmark:

Contrary to common belief, even if a customer signs a document releasing operators, manufacturers, franchisers, and owners from liability, he/she may still be able to file a Colorado products liability lawsuit against a negligent manufacturer for personal injuries that were caused by a defective product. The Colorado Supreme Court handed down this decision earlier this month in Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc.

The plaintiff, Savannah Boles, was seriously injured when she came into contact with a tanning booth's exhaust fan. Doctors had to partially amputate her fingers.

Prior to using the booth, Boles had signed a form releasing certain parties from liability in the event that any damage occurred from using the tanning bed. However, after she was injured she sued the tanning bed manufacturer, claiming that the product was unreasonably dangerous and defective.

A trial judge granted summary judgment favoring Sun Ergoline, Inc. because Boles had signed the release. Later, the Colorado Court of Appeals let the judgment stand.

However, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled otherwise and noted that while a release form can grant release from simple negligence claims (usually, a product is not involved), when the condition of the product (and not the manufacturer’s behavior) is central to causing the injury, then the release form violates the state’s public policy and becomes void.

Colorado Products Liability
Product manufacturers owe customers a duty of care to make products that will not injure or kill you. If you or someone you love was seriously injured by a defective product, it is important that you know that you did not necessarily sign away your right to sue for negligence because you signed a release form.

You have two years from the date of injury to file a Colorado products liability complaint. Breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability are three kinds of products liability cases. Design defects, manufacturing defects, marketing defects, failure to warn, and inadequate instructions are some reasons why an injured party may opt to sue a manufacturer for damages.

Read the February 8 Decision, Colorado Bar Association

Related Web Resources:
Megalaw.com

Products Liability, Justia

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Colorado , Electrical Product Defects , States

Bookmark:

Ford Motor Co. and a woman who was paralyzed in a 2005 SUV accident involving a defective rear seat latch have reached a confidential auto products liability settlement. The agreement came just after a civil jury awarded Lynn Wheeler $16,444,761 in compensatory damages against Ford and as jury members were getting ready to impose punitive damages.

Wheeler sustained catastrophic spinal cord injuries during a seatback collapse when a car driven by John C. Stanley struck the 2002 Ford Explorer she was a passenger. Wheeler, who was riding in the middle of the backseat of the SUV in between two of her grandchildren, was propelled forward into the vehicle’s center console and the back of the front seat. Meantime, the back seat collapsed over her after the rear seat latch broke.

Her Georgia auto products liability lawsuit accused Ford of designing a rear seat latch that was defective, disregarding safety test results showing that the center lap seat belt wasn’t safe, and, as a cost cutting measure, waiting to install a shoulder restraint for the SUV’s middle seat. A law passed in 2002, but which didn’t go into effect until 2007, now prevents car manufacturers from making vehicles with lap-only seat belts for the rear middle seat.

Wheeler, who is now a quadriplegic, has to use a ventilator and is a confined to a wheelchair. She has three children, nine grandchildren, and has been married to her husband for over 40 years.

The civil jury also held driver John C. Stanley, who was 19 at the time of the head-on crash, liable for $1,271,640 in damages.

Seat Back Defects
Defective seat backs can prove catastrophic for passengers in the event that the seat collapses during an auto accident. Common seat back injuries include spinal cord injuries, which can occur when the rear seat collapses forward and crushes passengers while pushing them into the back of the front seats, and chest and head injuries, which are more likely to occur when the front seat collapses backwards. Children, including those seated in child safety seats, are especially at risk of sustaining fatal injuries during a car crash where a seatback collapse is involved.

Clayton jury returns $17 million verdict, MyCountryPaper, December 26, 2009

Seat failures and occupant restraints, SafetyForum

Related Web Resources:
Ford Motor Co.

NHTSA

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Catastrophic Injuries , Georgia , Seat Back Defects , Spinal Cord Injuries , States

Bookmark:

Nearly five years after Atwilda Brown died from severe injuries that she sustained when her chenille bathrobe caught fire, the elderly woman’s family is suing Blair LLC for her wrongful death. They are seeking $30 million.

The 80-year-old was making tea on February 12, 2005 when the tragic accident caused by the defective clothing happened. She is one of nine people who have died because a Blair chenille robe caught fire. Most of the victims were elderly people. Three of the people who died were cooking when the tragic burn accidents happened.

Brown’s daughter, Sharon Davis, says she wants more people to realize how deadly the chenille robes have proven to be for wearers. Already, Blair LLC has announced two recalls because the robes and other chenille items do not meet federal flammability standards. This means that the person wearing the robe and those nearby are at risk of burn injuries if the wearer makes contact with an open flame.

A few weeks ago, the daughters of Evelyn and Murray Rogoff also sued Blair LLC for their parents’ wrongful deaths. Last February, the sleeve of Evelyn’s chenille robe caught fire while she was making tea. Murray was also injured when he tried to help his wife.

Susan Brent says she heard her mother screaming and found her parents on the floor. She used bottles of water to stop the fire but her mom had already sustained serious arm, neck, and back injuries. Evelyn died six weeks after the burn accident. Murray died from a heart attack in July.

Brent and her sister Michele Putini are seeking nearly $2 million for products liability, which they are linking to their parents’ wrongful deaths.

Clothes are supposed to meet the US standards for flammability. While all clothes are susceptible for catching fire, certain fabrics are more susceptible to igniting faster than others, which can prove fatal to the wearer. A clothes manufacturer can be held liable if a piece of clothing proves to be a flammable hazard that causes serious burn injury or death to its wearer.

Daughters: Company's Defective Robe Caused Parents' Deaths, 10News.com, October 29, 2009

Woman Blames Robe For Mother's Death, Eyewitness News 3, October 27, 2009

Blair Expands Recall To All Women’s Chenille Apparel Due to Burn Hazard; Additional Reported Deaths Prompt Re-Announcement of Robe Recall, CPSC, October 22, 2009

Related Web Resource:
Flammable Fabrics Act

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Burn Injuries , California , States , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

More needs to be done to prove child safety when it comes to seat belts—especially as not all US states require that kids ages 4-8 use booster seats. Unfortunately most seat belts are unable to properly fit over the bodies of many children to ensure maximum protection, which can result in catastrophic seat belt-related injuries, known as seat belt syndrome, during a car accident.

Just last year, one 7-year-old’s life changed forever when she sustained seat belt-related injuries during a catastrophic Minnesota car accident. Brynn Duncan was wearing a seat belt, but she had pulled the shoulder belt over her back so it wouldn’t sit on her face. The lap belt she was using fell over her stomach. When the vehicle Brynn was riding in crashed, she sustained a crushing spinal cord injury, bowel and kidney damage, and a bruised heart.

Doctors had to remove her kidney, appendix, and gallbladder. Brynn suffered from infection and depression and sustained permanent injuries. She now requires the use of her wheelchair.

Seat belt syndrome is not uncommon and while US states that don’t require kids, ages 4-8, to use booster seats should consider whether to revise their laws (which many parents turn to for guidance), there is a lot more that auto manufacturers and seat belt designers can do to make sure that kids and adults are properly protected when wearing seat belts and that these safety devices do not cause serious injury.

Injuries linked to seat belt syndrome include liver injuries, abdominal organ injuries, bowel injuries, chest trauma, blood vessel injuries, sternum injuries, spinal cord injuries, and death. Seat belt injuries that occur because the safety device was designed poorly or because the seat belt malfunctioned can be grounds for the injured party and his or her family to file a defective seat belt lawsuit.

Recently, automaker Ford announced its latest development in seat belt technology: inflatable seat belts. Designed to improve rear-seat passenger protection, especially for kids, the belts contain airbags that are supposed to inflate during certain kinds of auto collisions. Hopefully the new belts can provide the added protection kids and adults need during an auto collision.

Ford Says Inflatable Seat Belt Could Reduce Crash Injuries, Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2009

AAA Minnesota/Iowa & Safe Kids Minnesota Support Enhanced Child Restraint Legislation "The Brynn Duncan Law", Reuters, January 6, 2009

Brynn Duncan’s condition worsens, surgery needed, Daily Journal, September 10, 2008

Related Web Resources:
Seat belt syndrome, Wrong Diagnosis

Child restraint laws, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Continue reading "Seat Belt Syndrome: Child Safety Continues to Take a Back Seat " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Catastrophic Injuries , Defective Seatbelt and Restraint System Cases , Injuries to Children & Minors , Kids in Cars , Minnesota , Motor Vehicle Safety , Seat Belts , Spinal Cord Injuries , States

Bookmark:

A jury has awarded a 12-year-old boy a $12 million tire tread separation verdict for injuries he sustained in a 2006 New Years Eve auto accident in Mexico. Jesus Guzman, who was 10 at the time, is now paralyzed. The tire was a Goodrich tire made by Michelin & Cie.

The deadly motor vehicle accident happened outside Matamoros when one of the tires of a 2002 Ford F-250 pickup truck failed, causing the motor vehicle to swerve head on into a Chevrolet suburban. Everyone riding the SUV died—four of the casualties were under age 14. Loved ones who were riding in the pickup truck along with Guzman were injured.

According to the defective tire lawsuit involving injuries to a child, leaking roofs and broken air conditioners at a Michelin plant caused the tire maker’s machines to make defective tires that could likely fail. By issuing its $11.96 million verdict against Michelin for Guzman's spinal cord injury, the Texas jury rejected the tire manufacturer’s claim that the Ford truck’s bumper had scraped off the top of the tire.

Tire Tread Separation
The treads of a tire (especially steel-belted radial tires) can become separated. Because the steel does not properly adhere to the tire, driving at high speeds or hot weather can cause the separation to happen. Tire tread separation is linked to design and manufacturing defects.

Tire tread separation can lead to tire blowouts that can cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle and drive off the road, into oncoming traffic, or roll over. SUV’s are especially prone to rollover crashes during a tire blowout.

The fallout from being involved in an auto accident caused by tire tread separation can be catastrophic.

Just last week, the six members of the Scotland Yard Gospel Choir were hurt during a van rollover crash that was caused by what investigators believe was tire failure. Head trauma and broken bones were some of the injuries that the victims sustained.

Auto crashes that are a result of tire defects, including tire failure, tire tread separation, tire blowouts, and tire/rim explosions are preventable. This is one reason that a tire maker should be held liable for auto products liability. Car crashes can be deadly, which is why it is a tire manufacturer’s responsibility to make sure that their tires are free from defects that could cause a deadly motor vehicle accident.

Michelin Tire Tread Separation Lawsuit Results in $12M Verdict, AboutLawsuits, September 21, 2009

Michelin Loses $12 Million Verdict in Suit Over Crash, Bloomberg.com, September 10, 2009

Chicago's Scotland Yard Gospel Choir injured in van accident, Chicago Sun-Times, September 25, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Tires, NHTSA

Consumer Reports

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Injuries to Children & Minors , Kids in Cars , Spinal Cord Injuries , States , Texas , Tires

Bookmark:

A bankruptcy judge has approved a $24 million auto products liability settlement between Chrysler and the family of Richard Mraz. In 2007, Mraz’s loved ones won a $55 million jury award for the 38-year-old’s wrongful death. DaimlerChrysler, however, appealed the verdict, and the appeal was delayed after the auto manufacturer filed for bankruptcy in April. Negotiations between the automaker and the Mraz family's auto products liability lawyers ensued, resulting in this new settlement.

Products liability plaintiffs have expressed frustration and worry that Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings would prevent them from recovering personal injury and wrongful death compensation. The new Chrysler Group LLC had initially agreed to accept products liability for vehicles that were manufactured after the bankruptcy but has now agreed to accept older liabilities for injuries that were sustained after it emerged from bankruptcy last June. Chrysler auto products liability lawsuits for cases that occurred prior to the Chapter 11 filing will be limited to the old company’s assets.

The auto products liability lawyers representing Mraz’s family had insisted that Chrysler post bond during the appeals process, which allowed for negotiations with the appeal bond issuer to take place.

Mraz, 38, sustained fatal head injuries on April 13, 2004 after he was run over by the 1992 Dodge Dakota he had been driving moments before the deadly car accident. His family sued DaimlerChrysler for wrongful death. They claimed that the “park-to-reverse” defect is what killed Mraz.

Also known as “false park," the “park to reverse” defect is a auto part flaw that allows the transmission shift selector to get stuck in the position between park and reverse while the engine is running. The slightest movement can cause the shift selector to slip into reverse and the vehicle can end up moving backwards to strike a pedestrian, the driver (if he or she steps out of the vehicle), or another vehicle.

DaimlerChrysler had received more than 1,000 auto products liability complaints over this defect.

Judge OKs $24M Chrysler wrongful death settlement, AP, September 24, 2009

More Chrysler Personal Injury Lawsuits Will Be Recognized by New Company, About Lawsuits, August 31, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Chrysler injury victims protest outside company headquarters, ABC News, July 27, 2009

Chrysler LLC

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , California , States , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

The Arizona Court of Appeals says that a local woman who was hurt and lost her mother and daughter in a Mexico car accident can sue Continental Tire North America in the state of Arizona. Attorneys for the tire company wanted the auto products liability lawsuit to be argued in Mexico where the rollover accident happened.

Court documents state that the car accident victim, Maria Pozo Parra, was driving her motor vehicle in Yuma County when the tread in one of her tires separated. Pozo Parra then lost control of the vehicle, which rolled over. She and three other passengers were ejected from the auto. They all sustained injuries. Pozo Parra's mother and one of her daughters were killed in the rollover accident. She is suing the tire maker and the dealer that she bought the tire from for products liability.

As part of their argument that the case be tried abroad, the defendants claimed that the Arizona tire defects lawsuit had a “tenuous” connection to the state. The tire dealer is based in Arizona.

A judge in Maricopa County Superior Court agreed with the defendants and tossed out the Arizona defective tire lawsuit. Appellate Judge Diane Johnsen, however, said that the defendants' arguments could not overcome Arizona law, which lets plaintiffs decide where they want to file their civil claims.

Tire Tread Separation
Tire tread separation can lead to tire blowouts, which can cause a motorist to lose control of the vehicle. This can result in deadly rollover accidents and other kinds of auto collisions. A tire blow out can be especially dangerous when the vehicle is traveling at high speeds or if the auto, such as many sport utility vehicles, has a high gravity center.

Defective design or manufacturing defects are two common causes of tire tread separation. Examples of common tire design defects:

• Insufficient nylon overlays
• Deficient skim stock

Some causes of tire manufacturing defects:

• Poor adhesion or bonding of tire components
• Poor quality control

Yuma tire lawsuit OK'd for Arizona, Yuma Sun, August 14, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Parra V. Continental Tire

Tire Defects, Safercar.gov

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Arizona , States , Tires , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

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

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Florida , Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , States , Toyota Safety Issues , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

General Motors Corp. has announced that it will take responsibility for auto products liability lawsuits that are filed after the car maker sought bankruptcy protection. This is good news for people who were injured after June 1. Once the company emerges from bankruptcy, the “new GM” will honor future personal injury claims involving defective autos that were made by the “old GM.”

However, the injury victims and families that filed their products liability lawsuits before the “old GM” filed for bankruptcy still have not been given a way to obtain personal injury compensation or wrongful death recovery from the car manufacturer. 38% of all auto products liability claims filed between 2003 and 2008 were against GM. A committee that represents GM car crash victims says that over 300 people have personal injury claims valued at over $1.25 billion against General Motors.

The plaintiffs of the 2,642 products liability claims against the now bankrupt Chrysler face the same lack of recourse for financial recovery. While Fiat will assume responsibilities for warranties belonging to all Chrysler autos, the Italian auto manufacturer won’t be liable for past and future products liability claims involving defective Chrysler vehicles.

For example, Colorado Springs resident Sonya Segid’s arm was shattered when an air bag in her Dodge vehicle exploded. She now has two long scars on her arm. She is a sergeant who can no longer fire weapons and no won’t be joining her husband in Iraq.

Auto products liability lawyer Jim Gilbert of the law firm of Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte PC represents a number of personal injury and wrongful death clients in several states with products liability claims against Chrysler and GM. Mr. Gilbert is one of the attorneys calling on Congress to establish a fund for Chrysler and GM products liability victims. Otherwise, states could end up paying for medical care. Also, Attorney Gilbert is concerned that failure to determine what defect caused an injury or death could also result in more people getting hurt in the future because they won’t receive any warning about possible defects.

Considering that most car accidents caused by motor vehicle defects result in catastrophic if not fatal injuries that can be very costly to treat and recover from, this leaves auto products liability victims and their families at a huge disadvantage. Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte PC is nationally recognized as one of the products liability law firms in the country that obtains the best results possible for clients and their families. To find out more about our auto products liability lawyers and read about their latest headline making cases, please click on our In The News page for more information.

Contact our products liability law firm today.

Auto deals leave victims without day in court, 9News.com, June 24, 2009

G.M. to Maintain Legal Liability for Claims, New York Times, June 27, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, US Courts

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Colorado , Motor Vehicle Safety , States

Bookmark:

Despite the massive product recalls in the past few years due to high levels of lead in certain consumer products, as well as the fact that the toxic ingredient has been banned from household paint for over 30 years, lead poisoning continues to be a health hazard—especially for young children. Lead is more dangerous for young kids, who absorb lead more easily into their bodies. Because their brains are more sensitive to lead than the adult brain, young children are more at risk of sustaining some of the serious injuries that can result from lead poisoning.

Just last week, a Mississippi family was awarded $7 million on behalf of a teenager that continues to experience developmental difficulties following exposure to toxic lead-based paint. Trellvion Gaines’s family claims that he inhaled lead paint dust and chips while staying at his grandmother’s home.

The residence was painted in the early 1970’s using Sherwin-Williams paint. After the lead paint was banned, Gaines’s family claims that they followed the directions provided by the paint maker to remove the old paint and replace it with safer paint. They contend, however, that the toxic paint chips and dust was created when they sanded and scraped the old paint (per the paint manufacturer’s directions).

Gaines, who is in his late teens, now has learning disabilities and his reading abilities are equivialent to that of a second grader. Ingesting paint has been known to increase lead blood levels and cause lead poisoning, which has been linked to cognitive and developmental problems in kids, as well as other catastrophic complications, such as traumatic brain injuries, injuries to the nervous system, mental retardation, growth retardation, coma, and death.

Also this month, another family agreed to settle their New York lead poisoning lawsuit for $1.6 million. The Utica family claimed that four siblings were injured after they were exposed to lead paint chips in two different homes.

Rankeem Gilmore, 17, Tashawn Gilmore, 18, Delqwon Gilmore, 20, and Shaquanda Gilmore, 21, will divide the settlement that two landlords will pay them. Although lead paint can no longer be used to paint homes and other buildings, the toxic paint is still be found in many older homes in the US.

Products Liability Lawsuits
Product manufacturers are supposed to make sure that their toys, paint, and other products do not contain levels of lead that are dangerous enough to cause serious injury to people. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Examples of products that may contain toxic levels of lead:

• Paint
• Drinking water
• Painted furniture
• Painted toys

Utica family awarded more than $1 million for lead exposure, UticaOD.com, June 13, 2009

Mississippi jury rules against Sherwin-Williams in lead paint contamination lawsuit, Newsday, June 30, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Lead Poisoning, Mayo Clinic

Toys and Lead, CDC

Consumer Products Safety Commission

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Catastrophic Injuries , Injuries to Children & Minors , Lead Poisoning , Mississippi , New York , States , Traumatic Brain Injuries

Bookmark:

In San Francisco, California, a federal jury awarded a Bay Area musician $18 million for his auto products liability lawsuit against automaker Ford. 38-year-old resident Dax Pierson is now a quadriplegic because of injuries he sustained in a 2005 15-passenger van rollover accident involving a Ford vehicle.

According to Pierson’s California personal injury complaint, he sustained multiple spinal fractures when the E-350 van he was riding on Interstate 80 in Iowa rolled over 2 ½ times after striking black ice. Pierson, who was seated in the back passenger seat, struck his head on the roof after the seat became detached from the floor. He was using a seat belt. No one else sustained serious injuries during the crash.

During the auto products liability trial, Ford said that the van was not defective and fulfilled all industry requirements. Representatives for the car maker instead blamed the manager of Pierson’s band, Patrick Scott, for driving too fast. The jury, however, disagreed with Ford and awarded Pierson $6 million for pain and suffering and $12.3 million for medical costs.

Pierson founded the band Subtle and was its vocalist, keyboard player, and lead composer and arranger. Now, he uses special equipment that pushes buttons on a computer keyboard to compose and arrange his music. He also needs an attendant with him 24-hours a day.

In another California auto products liability lawsuit, a Los Angeles judge told Jaguar Land Rover that it must pay a now paralyzed man $21.1 million because the Land Rover Discovery SUV he was riding rolled over a number of times after it was struck by a teen driver who was driving at 80mph on the 118 freeway in 2003.

Sukhsagar Pannu, 53, sustained a catastrophic spinal cord injury from the SUV rollover accident. The former field hockey player can no longer utilize his legs and arms and he requires 24-hour care.

The judge says that the vehicle’s high gravity center made it prone to rollover accidents and the SUV’s roof collapsed too easily. Meantime, Jaguar Land Rover says it plans to appeal the verdict. Their lawyer says that the 16-year-old driver is the one that is at fault for causing Pannu’s catastrophic SUV rollover accident.

Paralyzed Oakland musician sues Ford, wins, SF Gate, May 29, 2009
Land Rover maker ordered to pay $21.1 million in rollover case, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Rollover: The Hidden History of the SUV, PBS.org

15-Passenger Van Safety, NHTSA

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 15-Passenger Vans , Automotive Product Liability , California , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , States

Bookmark:

According to the US Department of Transportation, each year 22,372 serious injuries and 1,652 traffic deaths could be prevented by the use of seat belts, which reportedly saved 15,147 lives in 2007, if seat belt use rates in each use state was at 90%. US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls safety belt use the “most effective traffic safety device every invented.”

To show people how serious safety and transportation officials throughout the US are about promoting the use of safety belts, the “Click It or Ticket” campaign will take place this year from May 18 – 31. Over 10,000 police agencies are expected to patrol the streets to catch and cite people that are caught not using seat belts when riding in motor vehicles.

Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Occupant Protection Use Survey reports that the seat belt use rate for 2008 was 83%. However, one out of every five Americans still does not buckle up.

Teens are an age group of special concern. 2,502 of the 4,540 16-20 year old auto occupant victims that died in 2007 were not using seatbelts. 65% of the teen drivers that died in nighttime car accidents that year were not using seat belts.

Defective Seat Belts
In order for seat belt use to save lives and prevent serious injuries, the safety belt must be free from defects so that it works properly. Unfortunately, seat belt defects do occur and car makers have been known to recall vehicles because of defective safety belts. Also, injury victims and the surviving families of those who have died because a seat belt malfunctioned or had a defect have sought products liability and wrongful death recovery from the negligent manufacturers.

Recently, a woman who became paralyzed in a 2006 Colorado rollover accident was awarded a $4.23 million seatbelt defect judgment against Ford Co. Erica Hoffman’s auto products liability lawsuit contended that the seat belt was faulty and that it came unlatched during the auto accident.

A Colorado jury awarded Hoffman $18 million, assigning 25% of the liability to Ford. She also settled with TRW Automotive Safety Systems Inc, the company that made the seat belt, as well as the driver of the 1999 Ford Mercury Cougar Coupe that was involved in her rollover accident.

Car makers and seat belt manufacturers must be held liable for negligence when they make and install safety belts that are defective. Vehicle occupants rely on safety belts to keep them secure in the event of a motor vehicle crash. A seat belt that doesn’t work properly can cause a vehicle occupant to hit his or her head against the windows or roof of a car. He or she can also get thrown out of the vehicle. A person whose seat belt unlatches during an auto accident could end up with a traumatic brain injury, a spinal cord injury, or massive internal injuries that might otherwise have been prevented.

New Study: Higher Seat Belt Use Could Save Many Lives, NHTSA, May 14, 2009

Woman wins $4.23 million from Ford in lawsuit, Examiner.com, May 1, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Click it or Ticket, NHTSA

Seat Belt Use in 2008 - Use Rates in the States and Territories (PDF)

Continue reading "Nationwide “Click It or Ticket” Campaign A Reminder of How Seat Belts—When Defect-Free—Can Save Lives" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Colorado , Defective Seatbelt and Restraint System Cases , Seat Belts , States

Bookmark: