Articles Posted in Products Liability

What is the worst kind of defective product? A good candidate is a baby-killer. And that is what the Infanto Baby Slings “SlingRider” and “Wendy Bellissimo” (sold by several large retailiers such as Target, Babies R Us and Burlington Coat) turned out to be.

Today the federal agency responsible for consumer safety, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), recalled more than 1 million Infanto baby slings after they apparently caused at least three infant deaths BY SUFFOCATION. The slings are especially dangerous for infants under 4 months old. Babies can suffocate in them in two ways: First, the baby’s nose and mouth can get pressed against the sling’s soft fabric, thereby blocking its ability to breathe (or cry out in distress). Second, if the baby is placed in the curved position (c-like), the baby’s head can flop forward, chin-to-chest, reducing the ability of the infant to breathe (or cry out in distress). Small infants’ necks are not strong enough to pick their head up out of this position.

This story is personally distressful to me because of my own blissful experience with baby slings. Baby slings became popular about a dozen years ago, when my boys were still infants. They are great because they allow on-the-go parents (like me and my wife) to bond closely with their babies as they go about their business. I remember a trip we took to New Orleans where I had my one-year old cuddled up against my chest as we strolled all over the French Quarter. He was so peaceful in that sling, with his little head peeking out over the lip of it, checking out the Bourbon Street scene!

Cover-ups. Personal injury lawyers here in Syracuse, Central New York, and everywhere, love them. We play them for all they are worth. Think about those big tobacco lawsuits. Would those smokers have rung the bell with those big pain and suffering verdicts without evidence that the tobacco industry had covered up what they knew about smoking and cancer? Nothing makes a jury madder than a cover up. And nothing pushes the size of a personal injury verdict up more than raw anger.

This blog post is about the Toyota defective pedal dilemma. But first, let me digress (again!).

In a Syracuse New York personal injury lawsuit I handled a few years ago, the insurance company hired an expert witness, an orthopedic doctor, to testify that my client’s lower back injury was pre-existing and therefore not caused by her slip and fall on the defendant-restaurant’s wet floor. He based this opinion in part on the fact that my client had not complained about lower back pain until two weeks after the fall. He was wrong and I knew it. My client had reported back pain at the emergency room. I noticed, when I looked at the list of records the doctor claimed to have reviewed in reaching his opinion, that a key record was missing — the emergency room records. So my cross-examination of the doctor was all about a “cover up”. I insinuated that the insurance company had “covered up” this ER report, that they had deliberately hidden it from the doctor. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe it was an innocent mistake. But the cross-examination was brutal, and the insurance company lawyer knew it. A large personal injury settlement soon resulted.

Surprise, surprise. Toyota is getting sued. Just this past Monday, a grieving Texas widower filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Toyota, claiming that a defective accelerator pedal in a 2009 Corolla caused his wife’s death. There have been about 10 lawsuits filed in the U.S. and Canada so far for injuries allegedly caused by the sticking-pedal problem.

Some of Toyota’s most popular models, such as Corolla, Camry, Tundra and Rav, are subject to a Toyota recall, mainly for vehicles built between 2008 and today. But even as Toyota has already recalled about 6.5 million vehicles, some people are getting hurt, and they are suing.

When you manufacture a car whose pedal tends to stick in the down position, either because it just sticks, or because a dangerously designed floor mat catches it and makes it stick, you should expect to get sued. Under New York products liability (defective products) case law, which is similar in most states, a manufacturer or distributor of a defective product can be held liable even if it was careful in designing and manufacturing the product. The only thing that counts, really, is if the product ends up, for whatever reason, being “unreasonably dangerous”. If it is, then the manufacturer and distributors must generally pay for the harm in a New York defective product liability lawsuit.

Child safety is a major personal concern of mine. I have five children; three grown, and two not quite. As such, I know first-hand the worries of a parent about dangerous or defective toys. Although toys are not always safe in the U.S., I believe we have the safest toys in the world. Why?

The most potent engine in America for protecting consumers from dangerous and defective products, including toys, is the products liability lawyer. Defective product attorneys in Central New York and elsewhere have saved thousands of lives by forcing manufacturers of dangerous or defective products to make their products safer or else pay the consequences by way of large jury verdicts for pain and suffering, lost wages, wrongful death and medical expenses.

The second most powerful engine in the U.S. for making consumer goods safer is arguably the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the CPSC). It is the U.S. agency charged with protecting consumers from dangerous and defective products. The CPSC decides when “recalls” of products are required. In this year alone (2009) the CPSC recalled 466 products. For example, the CPSC recently ordered the recall of Roman shades and roll-up blinds after the shades had already caused five deaths and 16 near-strangulations. The agency monitors the safety of about 15,000 products, including household goods, sports equipment, furniture and toys. (Other Federal agencies are charged with monitoring, and recalling if necessary, dangerous automobiles, food, beverages, pesticides and cosmetics).

This holiday season, hundreds of central New Yorkers will unknowingly purchase dangerous defective toys in malls and stores in Syracuse, Rochester, Auburn, Geneva, Waterloo and other upstate cities. Dangerous Toys Lead to Injury, Death and, eventually, to defective product Lawsuits.

According to the most recent U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission data, last year, 2008, defective toys caused the deaths of 19 children and resulted in more than 82,000 emergency room visits by children under age 5. Many of these injuries and deaths lead to product liability lawsuits in which the injured or killed children’s parents alleged that the toys were defective or overly dangerous.

Despite all the bad publicity dangerous toys bring to their manufacturers, toy makers continue to make some toys that are unreasonably dangerous for children, especially small children.

In a New York product liability case, the jury recently awarded $8.75 Million to a pedestrian whose leg was crushed, and later amputated, when he was hit by a 1987 Volvo 740 wagon. The car did not have a “clutch starter safety switch”, which requires the clutch to be pressed all the way down before the standard transmission car can be started. This safety device prevents a driver from accidentally starting the vehicle while in gear, thus causing the car to lurch forward, which is exactly what happened in this case. Volvo did not start installing these devices in its vehicles until the year 2000. One of the representatives for Volvo admitted, under oath, that the safety switch was available back in 1987, but that the company had declined to install it on cars sold in the U.S. In finding Volvo liable for this decision, the jury considered the fact that the safety device would have cost Volvo only $5 to install. This large New York defective product award includes compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, and past and future pain and suffering.

This case demonstrates an important principle of product liability law: Whether a product is deemed “defective” often depends on whether a safer design existed at the time of its manufacture. If the safer design would have been relatively cheap to implement, when balanced against the dangers of not implementing it, a jury will often find that the manufacturer’s product was defectively designed, which means that it was UNREASONABLY dangerous. Sure, all cars are SOMEWHAT dangerous; they are heavy machines designed for travel at fast speeds. But why make them more dangerous than they have to be? That is the whole purpose of product liability law; to hold manufacturers responsible for the harm they cause when they produce products that are more dangerous than they need to be. This jury, and juries like them, help make the world a safer place for all of us. Volvo and other manufacturers will think twice the next time they decide whether to omit a safety device that would cost them only $5 per car to install.

On Tuesday, November 24, I took my two children (Sebastian, 12 and Nico, 10) to get their H1NI flu vaccination at the Bristol Field House at Hobart William Smith College in Geneva, Ontario County, New York, where we live. Although I firmly believe this was the right decision, I can never just “relax” when my kids are getting medical treatment, especially a new and relatively untested treatment such as this vaccine. A nagging voice in my brain always asks, “what if the authorities make a mistake, for example, give them the wrong doses?” This “what if” thinking haunts me more than most parents because of what I do all day long; I review and handle, among other types of personal injury cases, medical malpractice cases, in Geneva, Phelps, Penn Yan, Seneca Falls, Waterloo, Auburn, Weedsport and Syracuse, New York, and in a lot of other places in New York State as well. I see a lot of medical mistakes. I am therefore perhaps overly wary of them.

Maybe that little voice in my head wasn’t so off base. I just read today that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention alerted residents of Needham, Massachusetts that a vaccine wrongly labeled H1N1 was administered to 47 residents. The residents were instead vaccinated against another strand of the flu. This happened on November 24, the same day my kids were getting vaccinated! The Massachusetts Health Department contacted all 47 recipients to inform them that they had gotten the wrong flu shot. Fortunately, no one got sick. The recipients are simply immunized against a more common seasonal flu and not immunized against the swine flu.

What if one of them contracts the swine flu and dies before he has the opportunity to get the REAL swine flu vaccine? In my opinion, the estate of that person would have a slam dunk lawsuit against who ever made the error. If it was a doctor or hospital, the case would be framed as a medical malpractice case. If it was a pharmaceutical company, the suit would be brought as a products liability case. Either way, I cannot think of a single defense that would defeat such a claim.

Contact Information