Articles Posted in Product Liability

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Jogging Strollers, which were imported by phil&teds USA Inc, have been recalled for repair due to risk of amputation and laceration hazards. The CPSC reported that when someone is opening or closing the stroller they can get a finger caught in the hinge. So far phil&teds has received three reports of injuries to adult users, one of which was a finger amputation. The other two included finger lacerations. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled jogging strollers immediately and be aware that it is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The recall includes the sport v2 and v1 models, both of which have three wheels The company has received a total of three reports of adults that have been injured as they unfolded or folded these strollers. The recalled strollers were manufactured in China and sold in specialty juvenile stores nationwide from May 2008 through July 2010 for between $350 and $450.

Around 22,000 of these strollers, sold between May 2008 and July 2010 at specialty stores, are involved in the recall. The serial numbers on the v2 model range from 0308/001 to 0510/0840, and on the v1 model they range from 0308/001 to 0510/0906. The serial number has the first four digits as the month and year of manufacture, while the last four digits refer to the individual stroller number and can be found on the folding hinge. Consumers who have a recalled jogging stroller can contact phil&teds USA to get a free hinge-cover kit and repair instructions. They can also visit www.philandteds.com or call the company toll-free at (877) 432-1642 for more information.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe that any company, not just phil&teds, that sells things that people pay good money for and expect a certain level of safety from, should be able to meet those expectations, and, if they can’t, then they should take every step necessary to provide full compensation to the consumer. If you have any questions regarding product liability law or suffered an injury due to the use of an unsafe product, please contact our firm for a free consultation.

According to ConsumerAffairs.com, hundreds of Toyota Prius owners have been complaining about a headlamp related problem since 2006. The complaints are similar: the headlamps flicker and then go out. Some Prius owners had their headlights go out while they were driving at night, and one person in particular was going around a blind curve at night when the lights went out. When owners take their Prius to the dealership to have the problem fixed, the price to cost the problem can range between $300-$2000, depending on if it is mechanical or electrical, or, if it is electrical, how extensive the electrical issue. For those who had their headlamps fixed or replaced, many of the headlamps would fail to function normally-either they pointed to high or low, would not adjust properly, or would go out again in as little as 6 months. Needless to say this is a costly burden to loyal Toyota customers.

The good news is Toyota Motor Corp. is going to alleviate this costly burden. They have agreed to settle the class action lawsuit regarding the faulty headlamps in its 2006 to 2009 Prius hybrids, which resulted in at least 2,500 complaints from motorists. The complaint stated that Toyota concealed the problems from owners even though the automaker had long been aware of the problem, a problem the suit called a “dangerous but undisclosed safety defect.” Under the terms of the settlement, eligible Prius owners will be reimbursed for their costs to fix failing headlamp systems. They will also get their warranties for headlight problems extended to five years or 50,000 miles, instead of the standard three years or 36,000 miles. Toyota can now rest assured that they have put the 2006-2009 behind them, which means no more court appearances, no recalls, and they can begin to rebuild their reputation of being a car company that deliverers quality and reliability-as they have faced several lawsuits over the past few years regarding sudden acceleration, all of which have damaged their image.

If you feel you have a product liability claim or have a question about product liability law as it pertains to a particular incident that happened to you, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience fighting and winning product liability suits and would be happy to consult with you regarding a potentential claim.

According to newsinferno.com, Depuy Orthopaedics ASR hip implant were recalled last year and continue to claim victims, and the recall was not limited to the U.S. Globally, there have been thousands of hip replacements that utilized the Depuy implants. The Depuy hip replacement is a metal-on-metal hip implant that is made of chromium and cobalt, and the implant contains a cup that is implanted into the hip, and ball and joint that connect to the leg. The recall was issued after research showed that 1 out of every 8 patients who had received the implant had to have an addition surgery to fix failing implants only after 5 years, instead of the expected 15 years. Additional research also suggested that the implants have a high failure rate, especially in patients of small stature. Also, it is speculated that the complications with the implant have to do with the breakdown of the metal components, which release metal shavings that end up in the bloodstream. The result is cobalt poisoning, a dangerous condition that increases the risk of health problems, of which include dementia or heart failure.

Now, many patients around the globe are seeking legal action against the manufacturer, which happens to be a division of Johnson and Johnson. Many who received the implants may need additional surgery, but everyone who received the implant has a potential claim against the manufacturer, as well as the distributor. Already, patients in the U.S. have filed lawsuits and claims against Depuy, and more are likely to be filed. Also, just recently, all federal lawsuits against DePuy were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio. Depuy is recommending that implant patients have their blood tested to check for high levels of chromium and cobalt. If you or someone you love suffered an injury due to the use of a defective product or if you have questions regarding a potential claim, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience fighting for the victims of defective products.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced First Class Foods, Inc., of Hawthorne, California, is recalling approximately 34,373 pounds of organic ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and, in some severe cases, kidney failure. The USDA has classified the recall as a Class I, meaning it is a health hazard and the use of the product will probably cause serious, if not, adverse health consequences or death. The problem was discovered through company microbiological sampling. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact a physician. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. The following products are subject to recall:

• 16-oz. packages of “NATURE’S HARVEST ORGANIC GROUND BEEF BRICK” sold singly with one of the following “USE or FREEZE by” dates: “12/30/10″ or “01/08/11.”

• 16-oz. packages of “ORGANIC HARVEST ORGANIC GROUND BEEF BRICK” sold singly and in three-packs with one of the following “USE or FREEZE by” dates: “12/28/10″ or “01/06/11.”

Here’s a headline that caught our attention: “Botulism Risk May Hide in Homemade Holiday Gift Baskets.” Botulism and Holiday gift baskets? Hmm… we could not immediately see the connection between the two. The article explained that with the economic downturn, people are finding creative ways to save money on gifts, and one way people are saving money is by purchasing cans and jars and making canned food items to give as gifts. The problem with this gift idea is that some people don’t know what they are doing and end up giving canned goods that actually end up harming the people who eat the contents. According to the article, three people required hospitalization after eating green beans that were inappropriately canned at home in 2009. A common source of food-borne botulism is in home canned foods that are low in acid, such as green beans, corn and beets.
The May Clinic states that botulism is a rare but serious condition caused by toxins from bacteria called Clostridium botulism and that food-borne botulism is harmful bacteria that thrive and produce the toxin. Also according to the Mayo Clinic, signs and symptoms of food-borne botulism typically begin between 12 and 36 hours after the toxin gets into your body and include difficulty swallowing or speaking; facial weakness on both sides of the face; blurred vision; drooping eyelids; trouble breathing; nausea; vomiting and abdominal cramps; paralysis. Anyone experiencing the above symptoms should seek medical care. Early treatment increases chances of survival and will help to alert public health authorities, who can help prevent people from eating contaminated food.
So be careful this holiday season and be cautious if you receive a gift basket with home canned foods. The holidays should be a time of joy, a time to celebrate good health, friendship and family. If you or a loved one fell ill due to improper food handling or packaging, either homemade or commercial, contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience fighting and winning product liability lawsuits. Please call our office if you have any questions regarding product liability law or if need help determining if you have a claim.

In July the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2749, and one week ago the senate passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) by a vote of 73-25. Yet, the day after S. 510 passed in the Senate, the House of Representatives determined that, due to S. 510’s revenue provisions. Accordingly, the only way to fix this problem is through House action, and so the House is expected to introduce and act on a new bill, which then must be passed by the Senate. But the 111th Congress only has little time remaining, so it must act quickly.

Food safety affects all of us. The FDA is responsible for 80% of our food supply, yet they currently do not have the authorities or the resources they need to regularly inspect all the food production facilities under its jurisdiction. Government inspectors inspect facilities once every 8-10 years. The new legislation would increase the FDA’s inspection frequency on once every 5-7 years. Additionally, the new measure would require manufacturers and farmers to come up with strategies to prevent contamination and then continually test to make sure they are working. The bill would also give the FDA the authority needed to force companies to recall contaminated items, test widely for dangerous pathogens, and provide the resources and authority to prevent food safety problems.

These provisions really need to be passed if we plan to properly deal and keep up with both the global and domestic food demand and challenges expected to develop within the next few decades, as we have not seen any significant food safety legislation in 70 years. Each year thousands of people become ill and businesses spend billions of dollars as a result of lost sales, recalls, and legal expenses caused by tainted food. If you or a loved one became sick due to food contamination, please contact our firm for a free consultation.

Soon the FDA may seek criminal charges against drug company executives whose firms have illegally promoted drugs for unapproved uses. Prescribing a drug for an unapproved use-an act known as off-label use-is legal, but promoting it-an act known as off-label marketing-is not. Normally the FDA seeks monetary penalties against drug makers that engage in such marketing. Unfortunately these kinds of fines have shown to be ineffective in discouraging drug makers from engaging in off-label marketing. Earlier this month, according to newsinferno.com, Eric Blumberg, FDA litigation chief, told an industry audience that his agency was looking for cases to use what is known as the Park Doctrine as a tool to “change the corporate culture” of firms that have thus far shrugged off other penalties. In other words a corporate officer can now be liable for illegal corporate actions of which he should have now about or was responsible for preventing.

The Park Doctrine was established based on a case involving John Park, president of Acme Markets Inc. in 1970, a time when the company was cited for rodent infestations at a warehouse here. The FDA charged Park personally with violating sanitation laws after other rodent infestations were discovered despite a number of agency warnings. Park argued that as company president he was too far removed from warehouse supervision to be held responsible. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the FDA that Park, as president, was responsible for ensuring rodent-free warehouses. Park got a slap on the wrist–all he had to pay a $250 fine. Prosecutors now hope to enforce stiffer penalties under the doctrine, including up to a year in prison and $100,000 fines.

Legal experts believe, the Park Doctrine can be a very powerful tool, while, at the same time, it presents prosecutors with a number of hurdles. They believe the real challenge is finding a person who was in a position to know about and prevent the conduct that occurred. In addition the other challenge would be assuring that an off-label case would hold up in court, especially if it involved executives many levels higher than the departments that committed the illegal acts, as there are certain cases where the management is so far removed from the activity and will have had no direct knowledge of an issue. So it goes without saying, to hold an executive criminally liable is a significant policy step that needs to be handled with unwavering confidence and diligence. Here at the Brod Law Firm we believe bringing criminal charges against executives is a bold and significant deterrent, despite the complexity and inherent challenges of these kinds of cases.

According to the St. Claire Record former Judge from St. Clair County, Judge Michael O’Malley, is part of a legal team leading two separate product liability suits filed the same day in Madison and St. Clair counties over the diabetes drug Avandia. O’Malley retired as judge on July 30th to join a St. Louis personal injury firm. When he was judge, he presided over at least one class action against drug companies. In 2005, he certified a case against Bay and GlaxoSmithKline, over the cholesterol fighting drug Baycol. The Illinois Supreme Court overturned O’Malley’s ruling in 2009. In the Avandia suits filed October 1st, O’Mailley is taking on GlaxoSmithKline as an adversary.

According to the suit residents Ida Akins and Allen McAllister say GlaxoSmithKline was wrong in selling a diabetes drug without first warning of potential serious side effects from which they suffered. Walgreens is a co-defendant in both suits. Akins and McAllister claim they used Avandia to treat their type 2 diabetes mellitus, but suffered severe injuries, one of which was a heart attack, from their ingestion of the drug. The defendants are being accuses of negligence, negligent pharmaco-vigilance, a breach of express warranty, a breach of implied warranty, fraud, and a failure to warn. They say both GSK and Walgreens are liable for their injuries because they created and heavily marketed Avandia as safe, despite knowing the drug posed a substantial health risk to patients with type-2 diabetes.

Avandia’s potential risks and side effects have led critics to suggest that Avandia should be removed from the shelves. Yet, the FDA has not bothered to properly warn the public of its potentially fatal effects. Instead they merely issued a black box warning. In 2007, a study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic and published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Avandia increases the risk of a heart attack by 43 percent and concluded that Avandia increased the risks of cardiovascular death by 64 percent. Now accusations have been made that the drug’s manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline, withheld data that showed problems with Avandia and neglected to properly warn the public and users of the drug of its potentially fatal side effects.