Articles Posted in Product Liability

Currently in Califonia there is a debate about the environmental impact of Hydrolic Fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, also called hydrolic fracking, is a natural gas drilling technique that involves pumping fracking fluid at high pressure into the earth to release gas deposits locked in underground rock formations, has long raised concerns about air and water pollution. Here in California, counties have limited authority over oil and gas operations. It is the state’s Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources serves as the industry’s main regulator. Yet, the division, which is part of the state Department of Conservation, does not have specific regulations for fracking, as it views it merely as one of several techniques for wrestling more oil and natural gas from the earth. It is Important that an investigation go into hydrolic fracking technology in order to find out the degree, if any, of environmental degradation and chemical pollution, and they types of injuries caused by inhalation of air or ingestion of water polluted with carcinogenic fracking fluid chemicals. The debate over this matter has residents living near wells are worried that fracking may contaminate their water.

One particular case comes to mind of well water contamination from fracking, one that occurred over 20 years ago in West Virginia and can be used to debunk the industry’s claims. According to the Environmental Working Group, the U.S. Environmental Protection agency has concluded, in a 1987, study that fracking of natural gas well in West Virginia had contaminated an underground drinking water source. It was determined that the fracking gel used to drill over 4,000 feet down had turned up a drinking water well nearby. In November of 2010, the EPA issued voluntary information request to nine leading national and regional hydraulic fracturing service providers. The data requested will play an important part in their Hydraulic Fracturing Study currently in the works. The study seeks information on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydrolic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at hydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of site where fracturing has been conducted. Another effort currently underway to protect the environment is a regulation bill, written by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont). The bill would require oil companies to make public the chemicals used in each well, but not the exact proportion, which each company views as a trade secret and keeps their business competitive. We will be keeping our eyes peeled for any developments regarding the EPA’s findings and how oil companies respond to the bill when it takes effect. Negligence on the part oil companes could lead to a significant number of injury claims in California.
Continue Reading ›

An

Many consumers are beginning to realize that they can tap into class action court settlements reached with manufacturers and service providers via the internet. This a good thing for consumers since judges usually require that as many people as possible are notified about a class action settlement. It is also a good thing for attorneys because now they can reach more witnesses than when their only method to do so was through mail and or print media. Because people use the internet as their primary source for finding information, the courts are beginning to realize that they could use the internet as the main way they send information to a class. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we are finding the internet can significantly improve our ability to notify class members that they may be entitled to a recovery in a settlement, and the internet is becoming the place consumers turn to for all class action settlements.

Class action lawsuits are a good way to keep businesses honest and help consumers find justice in the marketplace. No one likes being ripped off, even if the amount of money lost is a small amount. Consumers sometimes feel a small amount doesn’t justify legal action and/or is not worth fighting on their own. Consumer class action suits provide a means to deal with this type of situation, and they provide a sense of justice on behalf of the frustrated consumer. When that small amount is multiplied by all the people who have been ripped off, then there are thousands or millions of dollars that the company must pay back to all the members of the class, in addition to the company paying a penalty. Also, class actions draw public attention to instances when businesses have not treated the consumer fairly, and force those businesses to take responsibility. It is not fair when a company fails to deliver on a promise. If you have been wronged by a company, please contact our firm for a free consultation and share your case with us. We have over 10 years experience investigating wrongdoing and fighting for our clients in court.

Last month, according to Bloomberg.com, a Philadelphia jury awarded $10 million to the family of a teenage girl who developed Stevens – Johnson syndrome after she took Children’s Motrin. According to the Mayo Clinic, Stevens Johnson Syndrome is a sever sensitivity reaction that can be caused by many drugs. Stevens-Johnson syndrome attacks the skin and mucous membranes. It can cause the top layer of the skin to separate from the lower layer of the skin in affected areas. The condition can even spread to internal organs, and it can cause scarring and even blindness. Sometimes the disorder can affect more than 30% of the body, when that happens the condition is usually referred to as toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), which typically requires treatment in hospital burn units. According to the Maya family lawsuit, Brianna was left blind in one eye and suffered burns over 84% of her body after taking Children’s Motrin in 2000 for a cold and fever. Her family argued that a warning for Steven Johnson Syndrome was not included on the medication’s labeling that year.

The jury in the case found that Johnson & Johnson’s McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit “was negligent for not providing a proper warning about Children’s Motrin’s risks and that failure was a factual cause of the girl’s injuries.” However, the jury did not agree with plaintiff’s claims that Motrin was defective, or that McNeil officials’ conduct warranted an award of punitive damages. Johnson & Johnson and McNeil added warning about “severe allergic reactions” which could present with “rashes and blisters” to over-the-counter ibuprofen products, but no specific mention of Stevens Johnson syndrome is made. Patent advocates say that the current drug allergy alert on labels of many over-the-counter ibuprofen medications don’t adequately warn users about the risk of Stevens Johnson Syndrome. Parents in cases involving these types of claims argue that manufacturers of over-the-counter ibuprofen products, especially those for children, should have adequate warning labels placed on their products, informing users to discontinue the drug if symptoms show.

If you have suffered injury or a loved one has died or been injured as the result of a defective drug, you may be able to recover damages. To find out if you have a claim, you should have our case evaluated by a qualified our experienced product liability attorney. Our firm can tell you if you have a case and how to go about filing a lawsuit. Pharmaceutical lawsuits are too complex for a consumer to handle alone, however, as pharmaceutical companies have enormous resources and an arsenal of high-power defense attorneys. Also, it is important to note that California has laws that set a time limit for filing different types of lawsuits, so we recommend you have your case evaluated as quickly as possible. We recommend you seek the aid of an attorney with experience in this type of litigation. Whether we settle out of court or have to go to trial, we will fight hard to get you the compensation you deserve.

This week

Sony has announced the credit card information of millions of users has been compromised–after its Sony Online Entertainment PC gaming service had been hacked and the PlayStation network service had been breached. And now consumers are banding together and filing class action suits against Sony. A law firm in Toronto is handling a class action lawsuit launched against Sony Entertainment and its associated companies. Natasha Maksimovic of Canada is leading the charge against a number of Sony subsidiaries all around the world, including Sony Japan, Sony USA, and Sony Canada, for the breach of privacy. She is seeking damages of over $1 billion, claiming the company must pay for credit monitoring services and fraud insurance coverage for all suffered users for the next 2 years. She also claimed that she can’t trust Sony because it failed to protect her private data. What is more, she has accused Sony of being focused more on protecting its products than its customers. The company faces another class action lawsuit over hacker intrusion of its PSN; it is one of three, the first two were both filed in California. All of them accuse the company of allowing a leak to occur, and for failing to notify consumers in a timely manner.

A consumer class action suit is a legal action brought by a class action attorney on behalf of a large number of people, referred to as a class, with similar legal claims involving being wronged by company or organization. Class action legal claims usually involve a defective consumer product, a fraudulent or misleading business practice, or a deceptive financial practice. Class action cases involving financial issues deal with improper billing practices, overcharges, and failure to honor warranties, and class action cases involving defective products focus on design defects, manufacturing defects, or marketing defects.
If you feel you have been wronged by a company or organization, please contact our class action attorney today for a free consultation.

According to consumeraffairs.com, Sears has been selling extended warranties, what they call maintenance agreements, and then not following through on the promises within those agreements. Typically employees offer consumers the agreement at the time of purchase, and the agreement generally states that the consumer is eligible for the 3 year Maintenance Agreement, which covers repairs and replacements for any damages due to wear and tear, and an annual preventive maintenance check, all of which are supposed to save the consumer the cost of repairs. Sadly, consumers are finding that when they attempt to make use of their Sears extended warranty agreements, by asking for repairs, replacements, or refunds, they often get the runaround. On many consumer complaint internet forums, you can find numerous complaints posted by consumers who have been duped by Sears.

For a long time, consumer advocates have questioned the worth of extended warranties. Most of the time major appliance shoppers take the bait, paying extra for an extended warranty or service contract, of which the terms and conditions are not made clear by the salesperson. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have met many people who have been dissatisfied with extended warranties and MA’s due to lack of follow through on the part of the manufacturer or seller. MA’s and extended warranties are supposed to provide peace of mind along with insurance for your product, but the problem is that they cover the period of the product’s life cycle when the least failures occur. What is more, the MA usually runs out just before the product begins to fail, at which point the consumer can’t renew the MA. The best thing consumers can do, before purchasing an extended warrenty, is think about the chances their item will break during the warranty period– and keep in mind that manufacturers and stores know most products are reliable and will outlast the extended warranty period.

If you have been the victim of consumer fraud, please contact our consumer attorney for a free consultation. Our firm is dedicated to working hard for not only large groups of consumers in class action litigation but for the individual consumer as well, no matter the size of the case. Should you need to file a lawsuit, our consumer attorney will fight hard for your rights and make sure you achieve the justice you deserve.

The cell phone industry is pushing hard against a San Francisco ordinance that requires information about cell phone radiation be disclosed to consumers, according to newsinferno.com. CTIA-The Wireless Association recently filed suit against the city of San Francisco in order to prevent the cell phone radiation disclosure ordinance from being enacted. It turns out CTIA has five law firms representing their claim that the San Francisco ordinance infringes on the industry’s First Amendment rights by forcing it to acknowledge, against their will/belief, that there may be a problem with radiation exposure. They are also claiming that cell phone regulation is a federal matter, meaning no city or state can interfere by requiring disclosure of radiation absorption levels.

Studies about health effects of cell phone radiation have been inconclusive, but studies are showing that there is a need for more research, as some of the current research has raised red flags. For example, in a World Health Organization’s Interphone Study of around 13,000 people from different countries, it was revealed that the heaviest cell phone users–those who use the device at least 30 minutes a day, on the same side of their heads– had a 40 percent higher risk for gliomas, a common type of brain tumor. In a different study done by the National Institutes of Health, researchers found that 50 minutes of cell phone use was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the phone antenna, and it is one of the first studies showing scientific evidence that cells phones affect brain activity.

The outcome of this case will have far reaching consequences, as it will determine how all other cities shape their ordinances, and, as a result, many cities are watching closely. If San Francisco gives in to the industry, this could set a precedent, and will send a message to the little guy, in this case individual cities: They can’t beat the big corporations and that big business will always show up on the scene with their arsenal of lawyers and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.