September 22, 2008

Exploding Bottle Injury

As Orlando injury lawyers, we have represented clients who have needlessly suffered injury leading to blindness and partial loss of sight. In one tragedy, we took on a leading soft drink company who decided to sell dangerously bottled soft drinks. Recently, a foreign beer distributor is reported to have irresponsibly bottled its product and injured a 2-year-old boy-leaving him partially blind.
exploding%20bottle.jpg
The parents allege in their federal lawsuit that the Corona brewery failed to catch a defect in a bottle that exploded near their son on the Fourth of July. According to the reports, Corona Brewery owned by Grupo Modelo, violated its obligation to protect consumers and the public generally from defective and dangerous products such as the bottle involved.

Fortunately, most manufacturers take consumer safety seriously and put forth a significant effort to do all that it reasonably can to avoid needless injury. For those who do not, the courts provide a means to hold reckless product manufacturers accountable for injury and death. In product liability trials it is important to remember that the jury is essentially asked to determine if the product meets reasonable expectations. So, whether it involves an exploding beer bottle or soft drink bottle; or, an exploding gas tank or tire, the jury will likely decide what is reasonable based on their common sense and the technology available.

May 19, 2008

Injury Lawsuit Pre-emption

The last in this series of blogs on federal agency efforts to protect product makers from recklessly hurting consumers, we look at a current case to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, this case is worthy of all Americans who do not put their absolute faith in the judgment of corporations and federal agencies to protecting public health and safety.

This particular case, Wyeth vs. Levine, involves a professional pianist, Diana Levine, who lost her right arm eight years ago after the prescription drug Phenergan was administered through her vein for a migraine headache. Her lawsuit alleges the manufacturer, Wyeth, was aware that an arterial reaction was a risk in the intravenous technique that was used - but failed to mention it on the drug's warning label.

Levine won a substantial judgment in state court. However, the legal issue before the U.S. Supreme is: Whether the existence of federal regulation pre-empt states from either enacting stricter rules for public health and safety - or even allowing victims to file lawsuits in state courts?

The high court signaled its inclination to side with the federal regulators over the states - and big business over individual rights - with its February ruling against a New York man who was injured when a balloon catheter burst while it was being inserted into an artery. In that case, the court, parsing the intent of Congress in the Medical Device Amendment of 1976, ruled that the fact the device was found safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pre-empted the right of an injured patient to sue for damages in state courts.

As Orlando injury lawyers, we must wait to see what the court will do in the Levine case. Certainly, consumers deserve protection from dangerous products. However, it is so sad that politics and power so often places the interest of the people on the back shelf.

April 30, 2008

Injury Lawsuits from Dangerous Products a Thing of the Past?

In our last blog we discussed efforts by federal agencies to protect product makers from injury lawsuits for selling dangerous products to consumers. This blog includes specific examples of federal agencies seeking to protect corporations from injury lawsuits under state law, including the laws of Florida.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has instituted rules on seat belts, roof-crush resistance and rear-object detection systems - and pre-empts state tort law in the preambles to those rules.

When the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced new flammability standards for mattresses the commission made a last-minute addition to the rule that pre-empts state tort law, the first such move in the commission's 33-year history.

The Food and Drug Administration pre-empts state tort law in coming out with new rules that require drug manufacturers to warn patients when they become aware of new drug risks.
While not involving dangerous products, in the field of railroad safety, the Federal Railroad Administration issued a rule that effectively grants immunity from state lawsuits to railroad companies in the event of a commuter train derailment. Amazingly, this occurred a few days after Congress approved a measure that preserved the right of victims to sue railroad companies in such instances.

Why should these giant companies be able to put innocent consumers at risk and then be protected from the consequences of their reckless behavior? As Orlando injury lawyers, we do not believe they should.

April 21, 2008

Injury from Dangerous Products

If you think the prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, the Food and Drug Administration says you can't sue the maker for injury if it met agency standards. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says you can't sue a mattress maker if your mattress bursts into flame despite meeting CPSC standards. Companies making sport utility vehicles would get similar protection from suits brought by people injured or the families of those killed in rollovers under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposals for stronger roofs.

These federal agencies assert that their rules override state product liability laws and prevent innocent consumers from holding careless product makers accountable for putting profits over people. Most of these claims are rooted in statements in the introductions or preamble to federal agency rules. This has become a silent form of tort reform since the federal agencies not Congress creates these changes in the law. There is little if any checks and balances on what these agencies put in the preamble to their rules.

This has outraged consumer groups and legislators who find this tactic patently unfair. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said at hearings last fall that agencies have issued at least a dozen rules to shield drug and other product manufacturers from liability.

Of course, as an Orlando injury lawyer we know that the threat of civil litigation gives corporations a powerful incentive to make their products safer. We will take a further look at this important issue in future blogs. The public has a right to know that its federal agencies are choosing to protect corporate interests to the detriment of innocent consumers.

March 27, 2008

Toy Injury - Lead Content in Toys Moves States to Take Action

In response to toy injury and death, more than 25 states are considering tainted toy measures to address the risks revealed by the high-profile national recalls of toys found to contain dangerous levels of lead. No longer are states simply relying on the federal government to protect their children from injury due to dangerous foreign toys. As Orlando injury lawyers, handling product liability cases, we believe all reasonable measures should be taken on both a state and national level to protect our children.
lead-toys-hm-md.jpg
Maryland, for example, would hire inspectors to monitor toys for lead content under a bill headed for approval in the House of Delegates. That chamber agreed unanimously on a preliminary version of a bill to hire two state inspectors to monitor toys coming into Maryland for lead problems. If approved, the bill would fine companies $10,000 for selling tainted toys. Already, toys imported to Maryland must carry certification they don't exceed federal lead limits for children, but sponsors of the bill say Maryland needs to do more to keep kids safe from lead paint in toys.

This action comes as many states call for federal authorities to beef up inspections of toys to prevent lead problems. Congress is considering legislation directing the Consumer Product Safety Commission to improve toy monitoring, but supporters of state legislation believe states should not simply wait for Congress to act. We certainly agree. Of course, the toy industry does not. The Toy Industry Association has taken the position that the federal government alone should regulate toy safety. Fortunately, dozens of states appear determined to help keep dangerous toys away from innocent children.

February 11, 2008

Limits on Injury Lawsuits

We have previously discussed the unfairness of placing arbitrary limits on injury lawsuits. These limits or “caps” in injury lawsuits involving children, elderly and stay-at-home mothers work the greatest hardships. As Orlando injury lawyers we believe that jurors who listen to all the evidence are well-qualified to decide what, if any, damages are fair for the injury involved.

Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a state law Thursday that limits how much a person
injured by a defective product can collect in non-economic damages, reversing its stance. The lawsuit involved the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch made by New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson. The woman who brought the lawsuit claimed the product caused her permanent physical damage and threatened her ability to have children, and her lawyer argued that limits on damages were unconstitutional.

The majority opinion in the 5-2 ruling, written by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, said the Ohio law did not violate the constitutional rights of injured parties to trial by jury, to a remedy for their injuries or to due process and equal protection. Of course, the decision has been praised by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation who had joined in urging the court to uphold the law. Obviously, corporate interests want to protect profits and not the people who may be harmed by dangerous products.

December 23, 2007

Dangerous Toys & Injury

Twenty-five million toys, the majority made in China, were recalled this year. That is a record number of toy recalls and an unsettling thought for parents-especially in this Christmas Season. As Orlando injury lawyers, we find it interesting that most of the recalls began as a result of investigations by consumer groups which discovered illegal levels of lead in toys on store shelves. What has our federal government been doing to protect our children?

Sadly, our government has not done enough. In fact, the federal government continues to warn that further recalls are likely so we know more dangerous toys are still on the shelves of retail stores throughout Florida and elsewhere. Parents and grandparents can no longer ask themselves if a toy is simply fun. They must determine if the toy is safe.

Perhaps the recent tragic injury and death to innocent children will finally motivate our federal government to take necessary steps to prevent future harm. Despite efforts by individual store owners and the continuing stream of recalls, the toy industry says shoppers are not avoiding the 80 percent of toys made in China. We must stop foreign manufacturers with poor standards, if any, to continue to stock our store shelves with dangerous toys.


November 2, 2007

Toy Injury – Aqua Dots

Orlando injury lawyers must be on constant vigil in toy injury claims involving young children. Recently, the federal safety officials have recalled about 4.2 million Chinese-made Aqua Dots bead toys that contain a chemical that has caused some children to vomit and become comatose after swallowing them.

Scientists have found the popular toy's coating contains a chemical that, once metabolized, converts into the toxic "date rape" drug GHB, or gamma-hydroxy butyrate, according to a statement by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.The arts and craft beads, aimed at children 4 years and older, have been selling since April at major U.S. retail stores as "Aqua Dots" and elsewhere under the name "Bindeez Beads."

Anyone with Aqua Dots at home should throw them out, as instructed by the CPSC. The toy was named toy of the year in Australia and recently made Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s list of top 12 Christmas toys.However, Wal-Mart moved to list Aqua Dots on its Web site as "out of stock online" and removed them from its top toy list.

Toronto-based toy distributor Spin Master Ltd. stopped shipping Aqua Dots and asked retailers to pull them off their shelves, where they had sold for $17 to $30. Melbourne-based Moose Enterprise Pty. Ltd. recalled Bindeez Beads on Tuesday after three children in Australia swallowed large quantities of the beads and were hospitalized.

The recall is the latest to target Chinese-made toys. Last month, U.S. government safety officials and retailers recalled at least 69,000 Chinese-made toys over concerns of excessive amounts of lead paint, which can cause lead poisoning.

October 23, 2007

Vioxx Lawyer Seeks Medical Monitoring

Injury lawyers have sued Merck & Co., claiming that the drug maker should pay for one-time medical tests of people who might unknowingly have suffered heart damage by taking the painkiller Vioxx. Now that the pharmaceutical giant has withdrawn Vioxx from the market, the case for medical monitoring is getting serious attention.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs, both of whom took Vioxx for years but don't have any obvious heart symptoms, asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to certify a class action for their lawsuit after mixed rulings in lower courts. The case seeks to have the drug company pay for medical exams for some of the 20 million people who used the former blockbuster arthritis pill to see if any have had a "silent heart attack," The Star-Ledger of Newark reported on its Web site Monday.

Merck, one of the world's biggest drug companies, pulled Vioxx from store shelves three years ago after research showed the popular arthritis treatment doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Yet, lawyers for Merck told the judges that the company should not have to bear the cost of medical monitoring for people with no clear sign of injury.

While it may not seek the usual relief, under these circumstances it will be interesting to follow the court’s decision. Certainly, there is arguably a compelling need to discover whether the risks of taking the drug have, in fact, materialized. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that a typical EKG to test heart function only costs about $150-a small price to pay if it saves lives.

Merck currently faces about 26,600 lawsuits representing 47,000 plaintiffs, and about 265 potential class action cases. In the product liability trials that have reached verdicts, Merck has won 10 cases and lost five.


October 11, 2007

Hormone Replacement Drug Lawsuit

In an injury lawsuit involving pharmaceutical drugs, a jury ordered Wyeth to pay a $134.5 million. The product liability lawsuit was brought by three women who claimed the company's hormone replacement drugs caused their breast cancer. It was the largest award to date against the New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company, which faces about 5,300 similar lawsuits across the country in state and federal courts.

The jury deliberated for two days before announcing its verdict late yesterday in favor of the plaintiffs who were 75, 67, and 64 years old. The same five-man, two-woman jury will be considering punitive damages against the drug maker.

During the four-week trial, the plaintiffs testified that they started taking Premarin, an estrogen replacement, and Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, to help offset menopausal symptoms, but were taken off the therapy when they developed breast cancer. In defense, Wyeth lawyers argued the company sponsored or participated in a list of studies on the risks of breast cancer, and identified the risks on warning labels included with each bottle of the drug. The drug maker also focused on the fact that its drug was approved the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and remained on the market.

As the verdict reveals, the jury found those excuses unpersuasive. Consumers are entitled to safe pharmaceutical drugs and where necessary, adequate warnings. Hopefully, this verdict will have a positive impact on the pharmaceutical giants.

September 24, 2007

Lead Contaminated Toys

Toys containing lead continue to present dangers to our children. As Orlando injury lawyers we have found more reports of major retailers, including Target, Limited Too and Dollar General, that have more lead-contaminated children’s products in their inventories but have not yet notified the public, according to Congressional investigators.Certain products have been taken off shelves, but no recalls have yet been issued for the products, while the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates or negotiates recall terms.

As reported in the media, the disclosures came in response to questions asked by the House the Energy and Commerce Committee of companies that had already recalled Chinese-made products because of lead contamination, including Mattel and RC2, maker of Thomas & Friends toy trains.

The House committee asked if the companies found any additional lead-contamination problems since the initial recalls. Target disclosed that two products it sold recently — David Kirk Happy Giddy Children’s Garden Trowel and Sunny Patch Safari Children’s Chair — had hazardous levels of lead. Interestingly, the company did not disclose how many of the items were sold before it became aware of the lead contamination in August.

Dollar General said that 192,000 metal key chains appeared to be contaminated, while Tween Brands, owner of Limited Too stores, said it had discovered lead paint on a decorative flower-shaped object included in the wrapping of a shower gel and body lotion set. Discount School Supply, a retailer based in Monterey, Calif., reported that three products in its inventory that were made in China or Taiwan appeared in preliminary tests to have lead contamination. The items were sold under the names Giant Measuring Chart, Rolling Storage Rack and Shaving Paint Brushes.

Parents and family must remain vigilant. Excessive levels of lead can cause brain damage, learning disabilities, and in acute cases, fatal poisonings among children. Sadly, more must be done before our children will be safe from preventable hazards involving children's toys and products.


August 31, 2007

Advanced Medical Optics Sued For Contact Lens Solution

Users of Advanced Medical Optics' Complete Moisture Plus Multi Purpose lens solution
filed an injury lawsuit against the maker for vision loss they suffered from using the product. The plaintiffs claim to have developed Acanthamoeba keratitis, an extremely painful infection of the cornea, from using the contact lens solution.

The seven plaintiffs represent contact lens solution users from California, Texas, Alabama, West Virginia, Illinois, Maine and Georgia. As part of their compensation for the serious eye infections they are seeking reimbursement for the cost of their surgeries, and for necessary future medical care. As Orlando injury lawyers, these product liability lawsuits are important to hold manufacturers responsible for the needless suffering they cause. The plaintiffs allege not only a defective and dangerous product, but further claim that the company failed to adequately notify consumers and retailers when AMO Complete was recalled in May.

It would certainly be tragic if consumers unknowingly continued to use a dangerous product and suffered injury. In this case, the plaintiffs are seeking to have the court force the maker AMO to provide a better recall notice so that the product is taken off the market. That will of course be the only sure way to prevent future injury.

Recently, we undertook the representation of another victim of a dangerous product that had been recalled months before his injury. Unfortunately, not much effort was put forth by the manufacturer or seller to ensure that all consumers would be notified of the danger so they would avoid purchase or usage of the product.


August 20, 2007

Recalled Toys Still Available

Retailers scrambled this week to keep millions of popular toys voluntarily recalled by Mattel out of the hands of consumers, pulling them off the shelves and posting warnings in their stores that they pose hazards to children. As Orlando injury lawyers, we find it unfortunate that many of these products can still be obtained online.

For example, eBay, the online auction site appears to have dozens of new Polly Pocket play sets, equipped with tiny, high-powered magnets that could cause serious injuries if swallowed. According to one news source, there was a Doggie Day Care play set and several Barbie and Tanner sets, which had been pulled because they contain similar magnets.
There were reports of 173 hits on the key words "Sarge car," referring to the tie-in toy from the Pixar movie Cars that was recalled because of high levels of lead in the decorative paint. While some sellers specified their items were the lead-free version made in Thailand, others were the lead-tainted models from China.

This week's Mattel recall, the second this month for the world's largest toy company, involved 9.6 million toys sold in the United States. There were 7.3 million Polly Pocket play sets, representing 58 models, recalled for magnet problems, along with the Barbie and the Doggie Day Care sets, and some Batman Magna and One Piece action figures. The remaining 253,000 items were the Sarge cars. Obviously, parents must remain vigilant when buying toys for their children.


August 17, 2007

Children's Injury and Toy Recalls

The recall by Mattel Inc. is the latest in a summer slew that involves more than 10 million toys in the United States alone. The most alarming has been the recall of toys covered with lead-based paint. Children who ingest leaded paint can suffer brain damage, and improper disposal of lead-based paint can damage the environment. As Orlando injury lawyers this summer's recalls provide just another example of the lack of oversight in consumer products.

Mattel's recalls cover several hundred thousand "Sarge" vehicles and almost a million toys from its Fisher-Price line, including popular "Sesame Street" and "Nickelodeon" characters. Mattel's decision comes after the June recall of 1.5 million items from RC2 Corp.'s Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway toy line. There are also millions of Batman and Polly Pockets toys recalled by Mattel because of hazardous magnets.

As Orlando injury lawyers we must be skeptical when these companies say they are doing what they can to prevent accidents or lead poisoning. While it is true after the recall occurs manufacturers notify their retailer to remove the products that is too much too late. We believe more should be done to screen these toys to avoid similar hazards to children. Once the toys leave the manufacturer, millions of children are needlessly put at risk. While it may cut into the manufacturers' profit, we believe children are entitled to better safety controls from toy makers. Remember you can always see a list of recalled toys and additional information online by visiting recalls.gov or cpsc.gov.

August 3, 2007

Easy-Bake Oven Being Recalled

The classic children’s toy, the Easy-Bake oven has been around for decades. Many a child has successfully baked his or her first cake in one. Interestingly, the older versions of this well-loved toy prove to be safer than the present model. Consequently, Hasbro Inc., the world’s second-largest toymaker, recalled about one million Easy-Bake Ovens.

Hasbro, Inc received reports of serious burns and 278 incidents of children getting hands or fingers caught in openings. The company, based in Pawtucket, R.I., had offered repair kits for the ovens in February after receiving 29 reports. However, the company decided to recall the toys after learning that part of a 5-year-old girl’s finger had to be amputated because of a severe burn, according to a company spokesman.

The company has warned consumers to stop using the ovens and contact Hasbro for instructions to exchange the toy for a voucher, the company said. Ovens sold before 2006 are not part of the recall. Hopefully, parents and grandparents will become aware of the hazard associated with this product and prevent future injury to our children.

July 18, 2007

Pharmaceutical Drug Bill Moves Forward

Following recent drug-safety scandals, including the 2004 Vioxx withdrawal, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted in favor of giving health officials more resources to do their job. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration an additional $400 million in fees collected from the drug industry. The money is earmarked for drug safety oversight over the next five years, including increased "postmarketing" surveillance of drugs already on the market.

The Senate has already passed a similar bill. Both bills mandate the continuance, through 2012, of a program whereby drug companies pay fees to the FDA to offset agency expenditures on the review of new medicines. House and Senate committees must now work on a compromise bill acceptable to both bodies.

The bill, passed Wednesday in the House with a 403-16 vote, gives the FDA authority to require post-marketing safety studies, and it requires drug companies to provide timetables for completing these studies. The agency also reserves the right to mandate label changes to a drug or restrict its use or distribution, should problems arise. In addition, the bill reauthorizes a medical device industry user-fee program. That is expected to add extra cash to FDA coffers.

One item noticeably absent from the House bill: any provision that would allow U.S. consumers to buy cheaper drugs from abroad. The White House has said in the past that it would veto any bill containing such a clause.


June 6, 2007

Orlando Injury Lawyers Report on Accutane Verdict

In a drug product liability action against, Roche Holding, a jury found that the giant pharmaceutical maker failed to adequately warn a patient of the bowel disease risks associated with its acne medicine Accutane and awarded $2.5 million in damages. The jury, during its third day of deliberations, decided that the failure to warn was a major contributing cause of the plaintiff contracting the bowel disease and awarded an additional $119,000 to cover medical expenses.

The trial was the first of about 400 U.S. lawsuits involving Accutane, which has been on the market since 1982. Roche, which runs its U.S. operation out of Nutley, New Jersey, said it believes it has significant grounds to appeal the verdict and intends to pursue them. "Notwithstanding the verdict, the cause of inflammatory bowel disease remains unknown and there is no reliable scientific evidence that Accutane causes inflammatory bowel disease," the company said in a statement, adding that the medicine's label has contained a bowel disease warning for more than 20 years.

In considering New Jersey state consumer fraud charges, the jury in New Jersey Superior Court found for Roche, saying the company did not misrepresent or conceal Accutane's bowel risks prior to June 1995. The plaintiff, a 36-year-old computer manager from Alabama, had undergone multiple surgeries, including having his colon removed, after taking the drug in 1995. His reported symptoms included chronic diarrhea and incontinence.

Importantly, in this case, the jurors interviewed following the verdict said they believed Roche Holding should have done more testing of Accutane after it was on the market and before the plaintiff began using the drug. That bodes well for the other claims that are pending against this pharmaceutical company.

May 28, 2007

Orlando Injury Lawyers Discuss FDA Action on Avandia

As Orlando injury lawyers handling drug product liability claims, the Food and Drug Administration’s handling of the drug Avandia is disturbing. According to Senate investigations, the Food and Drug Administration's safety staff concluded that the prescribing information for the drug should have included the most serious warning. Yet the FDA mandated no such warning.
avandia_8mg.jpg
It has come to light that FDA staff found that the risk of congestive heart failure, a condition in which the heart can't pump enough blood through the body, demanded a black box warning, the most serious type of alert. However, without satisfactory explanation, the FDA did not follow staff recommendations and instead, inserted the warning about congestive heart failure risks with Avandia on line 351 of the label. Essentially, this serious risk was buried.

Why did GlaxoSmithKline Plc's diabetes drug not carry the strongest possible warning about congestive heart failure? Interestingly, after an analysis by the New England Journal of Medicine found patients on Avandia to be 43 percent more likely to have a heart attack, lawmakers began raising questions about the FDA's handling of Avandia. The risk of the drug causing congestive heart failure is another concern over this federal agency’s handling of this diabetes drug.

While the FDA is still reviewing data on Avandia's heart-attack risks, it is interesting to note that Avandia was approved in the U.S. in 1999, and is the world's top-selling diabetes pill and had $3 billion in sales last year. Perhaps the need to get important drugs to market should be better balanced with the need to ensure proper warnings accompany them.


May 15, 2007

Orlando Injury Lawyers Discuss Mega Brands Recall of Magnetic Children's Toys

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Division issued a recall of a children's toy known as Magnetix Magnetic Building sets manufactured by Mega Brands America, Inc. In excess of 4 million sets are involved.
magnetix.gif
The CPSC has conducted five recalls with more than eight million products containing magnets that could come loose and fall out of the product. As Orlando injury lawyers we recognize that these types of products cause significant risk to young children. If two or more magnets are swallowed, they can attract to one another through intestinal walls. When this happens, the magnets can become trapped in the body and require immediate medical treatment, as well as cause significant personal injury.

To date, CPSC and Mega Brands are aware of one death, one aspiration and 27 intestinal injuries. Emergency surgical intervention was needed in all but one case. At least 1,500 incidents of magnets separating from the building pieces have been reported. Although the hazard was initially thought to be a problem primarily for children younger than six, it has since been learned that at least ten injuries involved children between the ages of 6 and 11 years old.

If a child swallows more than one tiny powerful magnet detached from the plastic building pieces or one such magnet and a metallic object, the objects can attract to each other inside the intestines and cause perforations and/or blockage, which can be fatal, if not treated immediately. The CPSC is urging consumers to immediately report any incidents of loose magnets to the CPSC Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or to the CPSC web site.

March 2, 2007

Children Injury and Dangerous Products

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, (CPSC) more than 2.5 million children are injured or killed by hazards in the home each year. That’s despite the fact that, as the Home Safety Council points out, parents of young children are often the most safety-conscious of all Americans.

656799_cute_baby.jpg


It is almost impossible to think of everything in your home that can pose a hazard. It is easy to miss dangers lurking in common household products and children's toys. Manufacturers make products which seem so innocent until tragedy strikes. Too many caustic liquids which may appeal to young children do not have child-proof caps. Small toys can present a choking hazard to infants and toddlers.

While there are safety standards for manufacturers, many standards for equipment and baby care evolve over time. For example, walkers that once were popular are now strongly discouraged because children are likely to tumble down flights of steps. Or infant mobiles that attach to a baby’s crib should be removed once the infant is able to pull himself or herself up. By the time children are crawling, safety gates should be placed at the top of stairs, poisons should be locked up, and electrical outlets should be plugged.

Many older playpens and cribs have slats that are too far apart and create a risk of entrapment and strangulation. Likewise, accordion-style baby gates have been linked to child injuries and deaths. Older-style toy chests can be hazardous because lids can slam
shut, or children can accidentally be locked inside and suffocate.

As we have done in past postings and on our web site, we will continue to highlight recalls of dangerous consumer products as part of our commitment to our colleagues, our clients and our community. You can always visit the web site of the CPSC to check on product recalls.

February 23, 2007

Injury Lawyers Lose Against Big Tobacco

Handing injury lawyers a huge defeat, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a nearly $80 million punitive damages ruling against Philip Morris. The damages had been awarded in a product liability lawsuit brought by the family of an Oregon man who died from a smoking-related disease.

The case, Philip Morris USA v. Williams, tested the power of juries to impose large punitive awards against tobacco and other well-heeled corporations in product-liability cases. In their ruling, the justices decided to follow recent precedent that punitive damages should, in most cases, match "actual" damages.

An Oregon jury had ruled in favor of the estate of building custodian Jesse Williams, who died in 1997 after having smoked as many as three packs per day for 47 years. A jury awarded his estate $800,000 in compensatory damages in 1991 and almost 100 times that amount, $79.5 million, in punitive damages.

In arguments before the justices in October, a lawyer for Philip Morris USA argued that juries can punish a tobacco company by awarding damages to a smoker's widow but not to other smokers. Attorney Andrew Frey argued that the family of a longtime smoker deserved compensation based only on individual harm, not harm to the public at large.

The justices had seemed torn over how to apply past precedents limiting punitive damages against Big Tobacco and other deep-pocketed corporations in product-liability cases to the case of Williams. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas.

February 20, 2007

Injury & Death From Children’s Clothing

During our current cold snap in Orlando, I have been reminded of the risk of injury and death to our children from their clothing. As personal injury lawyers, we know that dangerously designed clothing causes injury and death to small children in Florida and elsewhere. Despite safety guidelines from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an agency of the federal government, children’s clothing manufacturers continue to sell dangerous clothing to unsuspecting parents and grandparents.

The other day, I saw a small child in our community wearing a hooded sweatshirt with pull-strings. That kind of clothing is known to get caught in playground equipment and can lead to the strings tightening around the child’s neck. If the child is climbing or on a slide, he or she can be left dangling until help arrives. That horrific situation can lead to strangulation.

As a parent, I have become acutely aware of these hazards and I share these risks with my friends and family whenever it comes to mind. Unfortunately, many parents have no idea of the risks. I wish I could get this information to every parent of little ones. Recently, the CPSC sent out a recall relating to hooded sweatshirts and jackets with neck pull-strings. Amazingly, there are thousands of these pieces of children’s clothing out there putting children at risk.

For your guidance and for those you know with small children, I am providing this link to the CPSC guidelines for drawstrings on children’s clothing. This guideline was developed in 1996 and includes drawings which illustrate what happens if a string gets caught and the child loses his or her footing. While we all do our best to properly supervise our children and keep them safe, children’s clothing manufacturers must do their part. That includes complying with federal guidelines for safely making children’s clothing.