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" »

Playgrounds can be a dangerous place for kids if there is defective equipment on the premises. Recently, the family of Alexis Durant filed a Texas playground accident lawsuit suing the owner of a Houston McDonald's for injuries she sustained while playing at the eatery.

According to Durant's mother, on July 24, the 2-year-old was choking on and soaked in her own blood when she emerged from the tunneled slide in the McDonald's "PlayPlace" area. The toddler, whose lower lip was seriously gashed when it got caught on an exposed end of a bolt as she was going down the slide, is scheduled for plastic surgery.

The family's Texas child injury lawsuit comes one year after another family sued the owners of another McDonald's in the Houston area because of a similar accident. In that Texas playground injury complaint, the family of 6-year-old Dominic Sierra claims that he sustained a gash to his head when he got stuck on an exposed screw while going down a slide on May 25, 2010. The gash was deep enough to reach his skull.

Sierra's family is accusing McDonald's chain owner Janus Unlimited, Inc. of inadequate inspection of the playground. They also claim that when they asked the manager for help, she refused to provide any and would not contact 911.

Meantime, McDonald's has issued a statement maintaining that it is committed to doing everything possible to make sure that its PlayPlaces are safe for kids.

Playground Accidents
With about 200,000 playground injuries and about 15 playground fatalities a year, it is important that premise owners and the manufacturers of playground equipment make sure that there are no safety hazards that could place a child at risk of serious injury or death. Proper maintenance, safe playground design, and using defect-free playground equipment is important. Some playground injuries have been so serious that there are kids who have ended up with serious traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, broken bones, and blindness.

If your child was injured in a playground accident, you may have reason for filing a child injury lawsuit against the property owner, equipment manufacturer, or the party in charge of supervising the kids while they were on the playground.

Playground Injuries At 2 Houston McDonald's Draw Lawsuits, Click2Houston, July 27, 2011

Playground Injuries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Playground Safety Guide, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

PlayPlaces & Parties, McDonald's

More Blog Posts:
Playground Accident Death: Girl's Family Wants "X-Wave" Banned, Product Liability Law Blog, August 24, 2010

Back to School Reminder: Playground Accidents Can Lead to Serious Child Injuries, Product Liability Law Blog, October 13, 2009

Playground Accidents Are Leading Cause of Injury to Elementary School Kids, Product Liability Law Blog, October 13, 2009

Police are saying that the reason the driver of the tour bus taking Indian tourists to Niagara Falls lost control of the vehicle was because a tire blew out. The catastrophic New York bus accident claimed the lives of two women, while injuring the 34 other passengers and the bus driver. Some of the more serious injuries included head wounds, fractures, and internal bleeding.

The bus belongs to Bedore Tours. Although the tour had started in New York City, the bus had left Washington DC and was headed to the falls when the New York tire blowout happened on Interstate 390 about 55 miles from Rochester. The bus flipped over, falling down a wooded median.

According to Dan Ronan of the American Bus Association, the tires on the bus, which is a 2007 model that was last inspected at the end of June, were only 2 months old. State transportation officials say there are no signs that drinking, speeding, driver fatigue, or any other violations by the driver.

Tire Blowouts
As our New York tire defect lawyers have said before, it is so important that tires are free from wear and tear, design defects, or manufacturing flaws that could cause a tire to blow out, experience tread separation, or come off while the vehicle is moving. Tire blowouts can prove deadly, causing the motorist to lose control of the vehicle, collide with another auto, rollover, or careen off the road and on an embankment.

If you or someone you love was injured in a tire blowout accident, you should speak with an experienced auto products liability lawyer right away. If the accident happened because the tire failed—depending on the specifics of what happened and why it happened—you may have reason for filing a tire defect lawsuit against the tire manufacturer or the automaker. You also may have reason to file a personal injury or wrongful death case against a negligent driver and other parties who played a role in the car crash.

Now that we are in the middle of summer, it is more important than ever to make sure that your tires are safe for use. In addition to the fact that more people are on the road, with many of them taking long trips, hot temperatures can cause an already faulty tire to blow out.

Tire blowout eyed in latest fatal tour bus crash, Reuters, July 18, 2011

Tire blowout eyed in fatal NY bus crash, CBS News/AP, July 17, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Safercar.gov

American Bus Association

Bedore Tours

Tire Care and Summer Safety, Weather.com

More Blog Posts:
$32.2M Goodyear Tire Blowout Verdict Upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court in Deadly 2004 Utah 15-Passenger Van Crash—Again, Product Liability Law Blog, January 10, 2011

15-Passenger Van Lawsuit Filed Against Chrysler and R & J Tire Company Over Woman's Wrongful Death, Product Liability Law Blog, October 27, 2010

Defective Tire Lawsuit Can Proceed in Arizona Even if Rollover Accident Occurred in Mexico, Says Court, Product Liability Law Blog, August 15, 2009

Continue reading "New York Tire Blowout: 2 Killed in Tour Bus Crash Carrying Indian Tourists" »

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

Seven years after 16-year-old Tiffany Stabler was killed in a deadly car crash, a jury has awarded a $40 million Alabama auto products liability verdict to her family over her wrongful death. Stabler died on July 4, 2004 after she was ejected from the used 1999 Kia Sephia that her dad had given her just two months before on her birthday. The plaintiff's claim that because the seat belt was defective, it failed to keep Tiffany "buckled up" when she lost control of the vehicle, causing her to sustain fatal injuries.

Although Kia had issued a recall in 2002 over this "false latching" defect, that notice was only for vehicle models 1995 to 1998. In their Alabama seat belt defect lawsuit, Stabler's family contended that Kia did know that the seat belts in its 1999 and 2000 models had the same safety issue but failed to also recall those vehicles.

False Latching
With the "false latching" defect, a seat belt may appear, feel, and sound like it is properly secured in the buckle when in fact it is not. Even the slightest force can cause the buckle, which isn't latched properly, to come out of the latch plate. This leaves the vehicle occupant unbelted and not properly restrained, which can prove catastrophic during a car accident. A passenger who is unrestrained by a seat belt can end up ejected from the vehicle, thrown through the windshield or windows, or against the roof of the car. Traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, crush injuries, organ damage, or death can result.

Some Other Seat Belt Defects:

• Torn or ripped webbing: A defect in the belt causes the webbing to rip or tear, which can leave the vehicle occupant without adequate restraint protection.


• Inertial latching: The seat belt is more prone to coming unbuckled during a car crash.


• Retractor failure: When the retractor fails to hold the belt in place, too much slack can arise. This can cause the occupant to sustain serious injuries during a crash if he/she isn't adequately restrained and kept securely in place.


• Lap-only seat belts: This seat belt only restrains an occupant's lower body and does not protect against chest, abdominal, spinal, or head injuries.

Defective seatbelt flaw ruling costs Kia $40 million, Torque News, June 28, 2011

Related Web Resources:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Car Reviews and Ratings, Consumer Reports

Motor Vehicle Recalls, Safercar.gov

More Blog Posts:
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

Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 31, 2011

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

The family of Rusty Lamont Hendriks is suing Ford for Texas products liability and wrongful death. The Hendriks claim that the auto manufacturer made a defective jack, which is why the family's Ford Freestar minivan fell on him.

Hendriks suffered fatal injuries on March 7 while trying to repair the Ford vehicle. He used the scissors jack, which was designed, made, and marketed for the van. According to his family's Texas wrongful death lawsuit, he placed the jack where the vehicle manual had designated that it should go but that the repair device still failed, causing the van to land on him.

The plaintiffs are accusing Ford of products liability negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, marketing flaws, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and misrepresentation. They say that Ford Motor Company had received other complaints about the scissors jack, which is too short, not well constructed, and unable to lift the weight of the vehicles that they are made for. They want damages for Hendriks's wrongful death, physical impairment, mental anguish, severe pain, medical costs, and burial and funeral bills. They also want damages for their humiliation, disfigurement, pain and suffering, income loss, mental anguish, and loss of consortium.

Auto manufacturers must make sure that all the parts that they make for their vehicles are free from any defects that could cause serious injuries or death. This includes not just auto parts but tools such as a scissors jack that a car owner is supposed to use when needing to raise the vehicle from the ground to make repairs.

Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Ford for defective jack after man crushed by van, Setexasrecord.com, June 6, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Safety Recalls, Safercar.org

Ford Motor Company

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

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

Woman's Wrongful Death Blamed on Faulty Seatbelt System, Product Liability Law Blog, January 31, 2011

Continue reading "Products Liability Lawsuit: Ford Sued Over Defective Jack in Wrongful Death of Man" »

A federal judge has scheduled the civil trial for Toyota sudden acceleration lawsuit of Van Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for February 19, 2013. The Utah wrongful death case is the first of hundreds of auto products liability lawsuits claiming that acceleration problems with a Toyota vehicle resulted in personal injuries or wrongful deaths.

In this case, Paul Van Alfen, 66, and Charlene Jones Lloyd, 38, were killed in a Utah car crash when the 2008 Toyota Camry they were in rammed into a wall on November 5, 2010. Van Alfen was driving the car that investigators say accelerated without warning.

Tire skid marks on the road show that he tried to stop the Toyota, which then went through a stop sign and an intersection before striking the wall. Lloyd was the fiancé of his son, who was also injured in the accident. Van Alfen's wife was also injured.

After talking to the crash survivors and witnesses, the Utah Highway Patrol determined that the gas pedal of the Toyota had gotten stuck. The model of Camry that Van Alfen had been driving was among those that were recalled because of concerns that their floor mats could get entangled with accelerator pedals.

Since 2009, Toyota has recalled millions of vehicles over concerns that sticky gas pedals, poorly designed floor mats, or other defects have caused sudden unintended acceleration accidents. The Van Alfen case is the first bellwether case over this matter in national litigation against Toyota to be scheduled for trial. Bellwether cases are significant in that their outcomes often serve as a benchmark for future lawsuits.

Toyota to face 2013 trial over sudden acceleration, Reuters, June 10, 2011

Utah case first Toyota suit to see US court, Forbes/AP, June 11, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Toyota

NHTSA

Safercar.gov

More Blog Posts:
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

NHTSA Says Electronic Flaws Not Responsible for Toyota Sudden Acceleration Accidents, Product Liability Law Blog, February 9, 2011

Richard Taylor is seeking personal injury compensation from General Motors LLC and driver Angela Carrell. Taylor contends that the 2006 Cadillac CTS that he was riding in had a defective air bag on the front passenger side that failed to deploy during a car crash. He says that as a result, he sustained injuries to his neck and back, as well as head lacerations. GM has recalled the vehicle.

According to Taylor's auto products liability lawsuit, Carrell, who was driving the Cadillac, lost control of the vehicle, causing it to violently strike a metal guardrail. Yet despite the severity of the collision, the front passenger air bag did not deploy, failing to protect him.

Taylor claims that General Motors did not properly inform Carrell that the Cadillac had an air bag defect or advise the authorized dealership to fix the problem. He also contends that the automaker made and distributed the car without remedying the safety issue.

Air Bag Defects
Air bag defect lawsuits usually involve air bags that fail to deploy, those that deploy but not in time to prevent a vehicle occupant from getting hurt, air bags that deploy but with too much force, or air bags that go off accidentally. These defects can cause serious injuries—even death—while depriving vehicle occupants of the necessary protections that they need during a collision. Auto manufacturers should be held liable for any defect that places someone's safety at risk.

It can be tough to identify what type of safety issue caused your air bag problem. This is why you need to work with an experienced auto products liability law firm that knows how to comprehend "black box" data and the physical evidence from the crash, as well as work with the proper reconstruction experts.

Suit against GM claims air bag failed to deploy , SETexasRecord, May 2, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Air Bags, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Q & A Airbags, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

More Blog Posts:
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

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

The parents of Jason Alan Foster have filed a Massachusetts SUV rollover lawsuit Mitsubishi Motors North America seeking damages for his wrongful death. Foster, 17, died from injuries he sustained in a 2009 SUV rollover crash. He was a passenger in the sport utility vehicle when the driver, a teen motorist, lost control of the vehicle and rolled over on a curve Michelle and Charles Foster say that the 2000 Mitsubishi Montero's design is "unreasonably dangerous." They are asking for $7 million.

In their Massachusetts SUV lawsuit, the Fosters claim that the vehicle had several design defects, including poor maneuverability, a design that doesn't protect occupants during rollovers, a high gravity center, and a tendency to oversteer. They contend that the automaker failed to warn about the flaws, defects, and/or the faulty design of the vehicle.

According to the Fosters' auto defects attorney, Mitsubishi knew about these vehicle defects that they are complaining about yet failed to act to remedy them. The couple is also seeking damages for emotional distress, negligence, and violation of state's consumer protection laws. Mitsubishi is denying the Fosters' allegations.

The Fosters are not the first to file an auto products liability complaint claiming that the SUV is a rollover risk. The failure to include electronic stability control on all models, the likelihood that the vehicle roof and pillars could collapse, and faulty seat belts are among the allegations that others have made. Some of the cases have resulted in juries awarding damages of up to $11 million.

SUV Rollovers
It is no longer news that SUVs are at greater risk of rolling over than passenger cars. Broken bones, internal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, crush injuries, head injuries, and neck injuries, are just some of the injuries that can be sustained in an SUV rollover. Vehicle ejection during a rollover crash is also not uncommon. Auto manufacturers know this and it is their job to make sure that their sport utility vehicles are designed to be as safe as possible so that the chances of an SUV rollover are minimized.

Parents file lawsuit over teens' death, Salem News, March 29, 2011

Related Web Resources:
aferCar.gov

Before you buy an SUV, PBS

More Blog Posts:
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, February 4, 2011

Toyota Stops Selling Lexus GX 460 SUV After Consumer Reports Tells Shoppers 'Don't Buy' and Warns of Rollover Risk, Product Liability Law Blog, April 13, 2010

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a warning that using a water walking ball can be dangerous and may cause injury to children and adults—although it is mainly used by kids. The water walking ball has different brand and ride names.

The see-through, inflatable plastic ball is large enough for a person to enter. After the rider climbs in, he she is locked inside. There is no emergency exit out of the ball, which can be only opened by someone outside it. Water walking balls can be found in certain carnivals, amusement parks, malls, sporting events, and other areas of high traffic. The balls are also sold for personal use.

The CPSC is warning that the walking water ball can pose a suffocation hazard especially as the airtight ball may limit the air supply inside if oxygen gets depleted and carbon monoxide starts to built. Impact injuries can also result if two balls collide with each other or the balls end up rolling off the grass or ice or out of the water and onto a concrete surface because they don't have padding.

Also, if the ball is in the water and it gets punctured, the person inside could end up drowning. Other injuries can occur if a water walking ball is hit by a boat or strikes another hard object. Water walking balls have been used in pools, rivers, and lakes.

In one Massachusetts water walking ball accident, a child became unresponsive while in the ball. Another person, a boy, sustained a fracture after the ball he was in fell out of a shallow pool and rolled onto the ground.

If you or your loved one was hurt while using a water walking ball, you should contact our products liability law firm right away. It is the responsibility of any manufacturer to ensure there product is safe for use and that it comes with instructions on how to use safely. Warnings of possible hazards should also be included.

You may have grounds for a water walking ball accident lawsuit.

Consumer Alert: CPSC Warns of Deadly Danger with Water Walking Balls, CPSC, March 31, 2011

Gov't says don't walk on water: People in big, inflatable plastic balls can drown or suffocate, The Washington Post, March 31, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Unintentional Drowning: Fact Sheet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Products Liability, Nolo

More Blog Posts:
Playground Accident Death: Girl's Family Wants "X-Wave" Banned, Product Liability Law Blog, August 24, 2011

Stay Away from Dangerous Toys, Caution WATCH and PIRG, Product Liability Law Blog, November 30, 2010

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Delta Enterprise Corp. are again announcing recall of over 985,000 drop-side cribs that come with "Crib Trigger Lock and Safety Peg" hardware. This re-announcement comes two months after the crib maker and CPSC learned that a baby girl, 7 months, died in a Colorado crib entrapment accident in 2009. The original recall was announced in October 2008.

The crib, which was bought secondhand, had been put together but without bottom track safety pegs. The baby suffocated after getting stuck between the crib mattress and its drop side, which had detached. The missing safety pegs contributed to the drop-side rail coming off its track.

The 2008 recall was issued after another infant, 8 months, died in a crib entrapment accident when the drop-side detached. That crib was also assembled without safety pegs. Missing pegs was also a factor in the 9 crib detachment and 2 entrapment incidents that had been reported.

It is important that a crib is properly assembled and all pieces are securely in place. Cribs should also be free of hardware defects that can cause dangerous malfunctions, such as when a drop-side becomes derailed, creating an opening between the mattress and the side of a crib that can lead to entrapment and, subsequently, suffocation, as well as other injuries. For example, if a child were to fall out of the crib because a drop-side had partially come off, he/she might sustain bruises, broken bones, cuts, or suffer a head injury.

Fortunately, the US government has now banned drop-side cribs in the US, which is linked to over 30 toddler and infant deaths over the last decade. Millions of drop-side cribs have had to be recalled because of the danger they pose to young kids. That said, there are still drop-side cribs that have already been bought or acquired secondhand that may cause injuries to children.

Our child injury lawyers are familiar with the crib defects that can cause serious injuries and we are not afraid to pursue recovery from a large manufacturer if their negligence played a role in causing the crib accident.

Second Infant Death Prompts Re-Announcement of Delta Enterprise "Safety Peg" Drop-Side Crib Recall to Repair, CPSC, March 22, 2011

After dozens of deaths, drop-side cribs outlawed, MSNBC/AP, December 15, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Delta Children's Products

Crib Safety, Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association

More Blog Posts:
CPSC Bans Drop-Side Cribs and Approves New Crib Safety Standards, Product Liability Law Blog, December 18, 2010

Delta Enterprise, LaJobi, Evenflo, and Jardine Enterprises Among the More than 2 Million Cribs Recalled Over Drop-Side Issues and Other Hazards, Product Liability Law Blog, June 29, 2010

Deaths of Two Infants Lead to Recall of Nearly 1.6 Million Delta Cribs and 2 Thousand Playkids Convertible Cribs, Product Liability Law Blog, October 22, 2008

Continue reading "Colorado Infant Death Prompts CPSC to Re-Announce Recall of Delta Enterprise Drop-Side Crib Over Safety Peg Defect" »

The family of Sandra Dozier is suing TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. over her Texas wrongful death. They claim that the defendant designed and made a very dangerous restraint system.

Dozier was driving a 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix on March 13, 2007 when she lost control of the vehicle and it rolled over. She suffered fatal injuries despite wearing a seat belt.

Per the seat belt defect lawsuit, the buckle provided inadequate restraint, violates both the principals of crashworthiness and GM's internal specifications, and does not comply with legal statutes. The plaintiffs want wrongful death compensation for loss of care, support, maintenance, advice, service, counsel, companionship and society, pecuniary contributions, and inheritance. They also want financial recovery for their mental anguish, emotional distress, funeral and medical costs, interest, and court expenses.

Defective Seat Belts
It is imperative that passengers wear seat belts that are free from defects. Use of a seat belt can save a life during a car crash or prevent catastrophic injuries. Unfortunately, not all safety belts are free from design and manufacturing defects. Not only do seat belt safety issues increase the chances of injury or death during auto collision impact, but also the defect itself can also be a cause of injury.

Common seat belt defects:
False latching: The latch plate appears, looks, and sounds as if it is latched, but it isn't. This means the wearer is not properly restrained.

Inertial latching: The seat belt becomes unlatched during a traffic crash.

Ripped or torn webbing: The safety belt rips or tears apart during a crash.

"Windowshade" devices: The presence of this "tension-relieving" device in a seat belt can create unnecessary slack that can reduce the seat belt's ability to properly restrain a passenger during a collision.

Lap-only belt designs: These do not provide adequate protection.

Some signs that seat belt failure may have been a factor in causing passenger injury:

• The belted occupant sustained injuries.


• The car crash victim was using a seat belt that fit him/her loosely.


• A vehicle occupant is found without a seat belt on even though he/she was using one.


• The occupant suffered serious injuries while wearing a seat belt even though the vehicle sustained limited structural damage.


• A passenger wearing a seat belt sustained serious injuries during a moderate or minor crash.

Seatbelt manufacturer sued after fatal car accident, The Southeast Texas Record, January 19, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Occupant Protection, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Hidden Dangers of Seat Belts , Time, November 30, 2006

Seat Belts, Product Liability Law Blog

The family of Rosland Watson is suing Toyota, the Grandview Auto Wash, and the driver of the vehicle that struck her for Missouri wrongful death. Watson, 40, suffered fatal injuries on November 5, 2009 when a 2002 Toyota Land Cruiser that was leaving a car wash bay hit her. At the time, she was seated on a bench in the waiting area, while her own car was being cleaned.

Watson sustained head trauma, injuries to her abdomen, neck, throat, broke, ribs and pubic bone, and developed lacerations, abrasions, and contusions on her arms, neck, lungs, legs, liver, intestines, spleen, stomach, and bladder. She later died at the hospital.

According to the driver of the Toyota, John Page, his accelerator got stuck. A police probe, however, found that Page had stepped on the accelerator and not the brakes.

The plaintiffs claim that Toyota should be held liable for Missouri auto products liability because it has knowingly made cars with defective braking and acceleration systems that have caused "eerily similar" accidents to the one that killed Watson. They believe that she would still be alive today if only Toyota had sought to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration problem that has affected so many of its vehicles, causing serious injuries and deaths.

In their wrongful death lawsuit, the family accused Toyota of fraudulently covering up information related to the acceleration defect. They says that after the car accident that killed Watson, the automaker sent two corporate representatives to "inspect" the Land Cruiser and, rather than attempting to discover the truth, "staged an inspection" to "clear its name." The plaintiffs say that the Toyota SUV was defectively designed and manufactured because it contained a faulty throttle control system, poorly designed floor mats, an "unreasonably dangerous gas pedal," and an electronic interference issues that caused unintended acceleration. The vehicle also lacked a brake override system.

Read the Lawsuit (PDF)

Toyota, Cleaver-owned car wash sued in woman's death, NBC Action News, January 20, 2011

Related Web Resources:
Toyota Safety Issues, Product Liability Law Blog

Additional Information on Toyota Recalls and Investigations, NHTSA

Once again, the Nevada Supreme Court has rejected attempts by Goodyear to overturn a $32.2 million defective tire verdict against it in the wrongful case filed by the surviving family members of three people killed in a 2004 Utah 15-passenger van crash. The plaintiffs have said that the deadly auto accident was caused by a tire blowout that caused the vehicle to overturn on I-70.

Killed in the Utah rollover accident were Andres Torres, Evangelina Tapia, and Frank Enriquez. Seven other people were injured in the collision. Last year, the state's highest court upheld the $32.2 million Nevada wrongful death lawsuit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Other defendants in the products liability case, Valley View Hitch and Truck Rental and Ford Motor Co., settled their auto products liability lawsuits prior to the civil trial.

Following the judgment, Goodyear then sought to argue that it was not given due process. A district judge had taken away Goodyear's ability to defend itself against the civil complaint after finding that its attorneys took part in stall tactics and acted in bad faith. Without hearing the facts of the case, the jury was told to determine damages. Now, the Nevada Supreme Court is refusing to review its earlier decision to uphold the jury's tire blowout judgment.

Goodyear Defective Tire Lawsuits
Goodyear is also the defendant in other tire tread separation complaints related to its Load Range "E" tires that are used on pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans. Dozens of defective tire lawsuits have been reportedly filed over these Goodyear tires, which were manufactured between 1991 and 2000. According to ABC News, 15,000 of these tires experienced tread separation between 1991 and 2001 alone. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says there were reports of 87 auto crashes involving these tires during this time period, with 50% of the collisions causing at least 158 injuries and 18 deaths.

Tread Separation
Tread separation is a common cause of tire blowouts and rollovers. Vehicles with high gravity centers, such as SUVs, and 15-passenger vans, are at high risk of rolling over in the event that tread separation should cause a driver to lose control of the auto. Tire manufacturing and design defects are two common causes of tread separation.

$30 million verdict: Nevada Supreme Court denies Goodyear's petition for rehearing, LV Legal News, December 31, 2010

Goodyear Tires Draw Lawsuits, No Recall, Good Morning America/ABC News, May 19, 2010

$32 Million Defective Tire Judgment Against Goodyear Upheld, Product Liability Law Blog, July 10, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Goodyear Tires

Tire Defects, SaferCars.gov

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ford Motor Co. is expanding its recall of 575,000 Windstar vehicles to include another 37,000 minivans. According to the Associated Press, the expansion of the recall comes after the family of Sean Bowman complained that the automaker didn't do enough warn about the initial recall, which involved older Windstars and concerns that the vans' rear axles might corrode and break.

Bowman, 28 was killed in a single-vehicle crash last October when he lost control of his 2001 Ford WIndstar and rammed into the side of a building. Critically injured in the accident was his girlfriend. Bowman leaves behind two young daughters, ages 4 and 7. His family says that they did not receive a safety recall notice from Ford until one week after the tragic traffic collision and more than six weeks after the recall was announced in August. They are considering filing a Massachusetts auto products liability lawsuit against Ford over his wrongful death.

Federal law requires car manufacturers let vehicle owners know about a recall "within a reasonable amount of time." Usually, owners are notified about a recall within 30 days.

While the original recall affected 1998 to 2003 model Windstars in certain US states and Canada, where heavy road salt can cause rust to appear on the axles and crack-related corrosions to cause axle breakage, the expanded recall adds 2003 Windstars that come with heat-treated axles, as well as vans in Utah where road salt is used. Ford says that its latest figures show that as of September, there have been at least seven accidents linked to the axle defect that have resulted in injuries—although the automaker says that none of the injuries are serious. It has received some 950 complaints about the axles.

Ford says that it has been looking through state motor vehicle registration databases to search for WIndstar owners affected by the recall. Notifications of the expanded recall started to go out last week.

Minivan recall grows as victim's family speaks out, Forbes, December 15, 2010

Minivan Recall Grows As Victim's Family Speaks Out, NPR/AP, December 15, 2010

Whitman, Mass. police investigate deadly car crash into building, NECN, October 15, 2010

Related Web Resource:
Ford Motor Company