Articles Posted in Products Liability

General Motors has not had a good year. Earlier this year, it came to light that the ignition switch in several of the company’s more popular models was faulty, causing drivers to lose control of the car at full speed. At least 13 deaths have been attributed to the faulty mechanism, and countless accidents are suspected to have been caused as well. To make matters worse, evidence has shown that GM may have known about the problems and decided to continue selling the cars anyhow.

The Most Recent Round of Recalls

Earlier this week, GM announced yet another round of recalls, this time covering an additional 2.42 million vehicles. Evidently, that figure covers four different problems in various models, including:

  • Airbag problems in certain Cadillac models;
  • Shift cable problems in the Chevy Malibu and the Pontiac G6;
  • Seat belt problems in the Buick Enclave, Chevy Traverse, and GMC Acadia; and
  • A problem with the GMC Sierra HD that can cause the car to catch fire.

These vehicles join the over 2 million others that have been recalled by the car manufacturing giant earlier this year.

Continue reading ›

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) began consolidating claims against Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies related to the oral contraceptive Yaz in 2009. Since then, the multidistrict proceeding has grown to include more than 11,000 cases. In re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:09-md-02100 (S.D. Ill.). According to the JPML, 9,550 cases are still pending as of March 13, 2014, although Bayer has reportedly reached settlement agreements in many of those cases. Controversy over the drug began with claims about inaccurate information and insufficient warnings in television commercials for the drug, followed by products liability lawsuits.

Yaz and Yasmin were brand names for a synthetic hormone-based birth control medication containing a diuretic known as drospirenone,. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as an oral contraceptive. Drospirenone has been associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, a dangerous type of blood clot that blocks all blood flow in a vein or artery and can lead to heart attack or stroke.

Television ads for the drug in 2008 claimed that Yaz could treat mild acne and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). The FDA and attorneys general in twenty-seven states required Bayer to run new ads beginning in early 2009, based on allegations that the company had overstated Yaz’s ability to treat acne and PMDD, and had understated the risks of the drug. In April 2012, the FDA ordered Bayer to change the label on Yaz and related medications to include warnings about the higher risk of blood clots associated with drugs containing drospirenone.

Continue reading ›

A prank involving a portable toilet led to tragic consequences when the victim of the prank suffered permanent paralysis. His lawsuit named the two pranksters as defendants, as well as the company that provided the portable toilet and its manufacturer. While the claims against the pranksters, who are the plaintiff’s cousins-in-law, are most likely based on general negligence theories, the claims against the portable toilet companies are based on products liability. The plaintiff claimed that the companies failed to provide equipment to secure the unit to the ground, and installed it in an unsafe location. These made it more likely for the toilet to tip over. The defendants recently agreed to settle the claim for $5 million.

The plaintiff was on a fishing and camping trip with his two relatives in the area of Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. While the plaintiff was using a portable toilet, his relatives backed their truck up to its door, intending to lock him in as a prank. However, they accidentally knocked the toilet over by bumping into it with the truck. The toilet tipped over, causing the plaintiff to fall on his head and fracture his cervical spine in several places. He underwent surgery at a hospital in Philadelphia and spent several weeks at a rehabilitation hospital, but is now paralyzed from the shoulders down.

The plaintiff and his wife sued the two cousins-in-law, the company that provided the portable toilet, and the portable toilet manufacturer. They claimed that the two companies were liable for several acts of negligence. The toilet was installed on a slope with only some pieces of wood to keep it upright, making it more prone to tipping over and unsafe for use. They claimed the manufacturer failed to provide metal spikes used to anchor the toilet in the ground, even though that model of toilet had holes in the base specifically for that purpose. The parties reached a settlement in early February 2014, in which the plaintiff will receive $5 million. It is not clear how that amount will be apportioned between the defendants.

Continue reading ›

A company that manufactures strollers has issued a voluntary recall, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), citing a risk of finger injuries. The company has received several reports of such injuries, including at least one partial amputation, due to consumers getting their fingers stuck in the stroller’s folding mechanism. The recall affects more than 200,000 units of several different stroller models. The company is offering a repair kit to consumers who have purchased recalled strollers.

The CPSC monitors reports of injuries caused by consumer products, as well as consumer products’ compliance with a range of federal safety standards. After a sufficient number of consumers report injuries caused by a product, a recall may occur. In the event of a voluntary recall by the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of a dangerous or defective product, the CPSC may oversee the recall process. It also has the authority to order recalls on its own.

The stroller manufacturer, UK-based Britax, has received at least eight reports of injuries caused by three models of stroller. The stroller folds and unfolds, according to the CPSC’s description, using a folding mechanism with a release button and release strap. Consumers reported that fingers could get stuck in the hinge of the mechanism during the release and unfolding process. Injuries included partial fingertip amputation, broken fingers, and lacerations.

Continue reading ›

A series of lawsuits brought by hospital technicians accuses the hospital where they worked of failing to maintain adequate shielding around its CT scan machine. The plaintiffs, in five individual lawsuits, allege that radiation exposure caused a variety of injuries and will require them to undergo cancer screenings for the rest of their lives. Two of the plaintiffs operated the CT scanner while pregnant and have brought claims on behalf of their children. The lawsuit names the company that operates the hospital, along with the engineering and architecture firms that built the addition housing the CT scanner, as defendants.

A computed tomography (CT) scanning machine rotates around a patient, using x-ray beams to create a cross-section image of the patient’s body. The process typically takes only a few minutes, so a patient’s exposure to dangerous radiation is minimal. Technicians who operate the scanners, however, could face prolonged exposure and associated health risks. Lead shielding in the walls surrounding a scanner is a standard method of protecting technicians from radiation. The technicians set up the scanner with the patient, then leave the room while the scanner is in operation.

Methodist Medical Center, located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, opened a new emergency department building in 2006. This building included a facility for CT scanning. The plaintiffs claim that the room housing the CT scanner did not have sufficient lead shielding, resulting in dangerous levels of exposure to radiation over a seven-year period. All five plaintiffs claim that they are suffering from health problems related to radiation exposure, including thyroid problems, sleep issues, and headaches. They allege that they all face a significantly higher risk of cancer, and require regular cancer screening. Two of the plaintiffs worked while pregnant, and both have asserted claims for their children’s injuries. One of the children allegedly suffers from severe radiation-related health problems.

Continue reading ›

A group of households in Baltimore County, Maryland recently settled their lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. for property damage and other injuries allegedly resulting from a massive gasoline leak near their homes in 2006. Jury verdicts against the oil company totaled more than $1.6 billion, but the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the awards. In addition to property damage, the plaintiffs asserted causes of action for emotional distress due to fear of developing a disease and “medical monitoring.” This refers to the ongoing costs of monitoring for the onset of illness after exposure to toxic materials. Maryland courts have never recognized medical monitoring as a claim or remedy before, but the orders reversing the verdicts included explicit recognition of such a remedy.

An underground storage tank at a gas station in Jacksonville, Maryland allegedly leaked for about five weeks in 2006, pouring over 26,000 gallons of gasoline into the ground and contaminating the groundwater. Many of the homes in the area rely on wells for their water supply. Maryland’s Department of the Environment commenced monitoring about 248 private wells in the area. Exxon settled with the state for $4 million for cleanup costs in 2008.

Several hundred people and businesses filed suit against Exxon Mobil, claiming more than $1 billion in damages. A jury awarded about $150 million in damages to about ninety households in 2009 for property damage, emotional distress, and medical monitoring. Another jury trial in 2011 resulted in a $1.5 billion award to about 160 households and businesses, including about $495 million in compensatory damages for fraud, property damage, emotional distress, and medical monitoring; and $1 billion in punitive damages.

Continue reading ›

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year on a products liability case that attempted to exclude expert testimony regarding defective product design, and implicate the defense of “assumption of risk” in a personal injury case.

The decision, Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox, 59 A. 3d 1267 Ct. App. D.C. (2013), dealt with a baseball umpire who became permanently injured as a result of an allegedly defectively designed face mask that he was wearing. The plaintiff, Edwin Hickox, was given the mask by a Wilson representative at an annual retreat for Major League Baseball players. The representative claimed that the mask was a new, safer design.

Several months later, Hickox was wearing the mask while he worked behind the home plate during a game in Washington D.C. Towards the end of the game, he was struck in the mask with a foul ball, the impact of which gave him a concussion, and damaged a joint between the bones in his inner ear. As a result, he now suffers from mild to moderate permanent hearing loss.

Continue reading ›

A victory was recently reported in a lawsuit against C.R. Bard, the manufacturer of the Avaulta line of vaginal mesh devices. The jury ordered the company to pay a Georgia woman $2 million for her serious injuries.

The individual lawsuit was filed on behalf of a plaintiff whose vaginal mesh injuries reportedly included perforation to her internal organs, vaginal scarring, pelvic pain and pain during intercourse. According to court documents, the plaintiff suffered an incredible lowering in enjoyment of her life, and the vaginal mesh eventually had to be removed.

After a reported twelve hours of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict for $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages. This was the first verdict in the first case to go to trial for similar lawsuits in the area.

Continue reading ›

A mother filed suit against Monster Beverage Corp., this week, alleging that her teenage son’s death from cardiac arrhythmia was attributable to his habitual consumption of the company’s energy drink.

The woman’s son was taken to the hospital for cardiac arrest, and died shortly thereafter. Monster released a statement in response, claiming that there was no causal evidence that their beverage led to the cardiac arrest.

Another similar lawsuit was filed against Monster, on behalf of a 14 year old girl from Maryland who died after consuming two 24 ounce cans of the energy drink. In that case, Monster claimed in defense that there was no blood test performed to confirm the alleged “caffeine toxicity,” which the suit claimed, but rather the cause of death was ruled natural causes, hastened by pre-existing conditions.

The attorney representing both of the families stated that the allegations claim that the plaintiffs’ deaths were caused by the energy drinks, and more specifically the company’s failure to warn about the dangers of consuming the product.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have begun an investigation into the reported deaths of individuals tied to consumption of energy drinks, including allegedly five blaming consumption of Monster beverages as the primary cause of death.

Additionally, Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney, is allegedly also suing the company, claiming it markets its energy drinks to children and that the products present potentially severe health risks.

Continue reading ›

Toyota announced earlier this month that it will pay some $29 million to 29 states (includingMaryland) and American Samoa as part of its settlement related to safety recalls. The settlement is in response to the lawsuits filed in 2010 (by several state attorney generals), following in the wake of the global recall of 14 million vehicles which accelerated without notice. The lawsuit accused Toyota of failing to notify customers promptly about the problems.

Results of the investigation revealed a lack of communication between Toyota’s Japan and U.S. offices. Toyota has agreed to address communication lapses, post additional information for consumers on its website, and reimburse costs for certain owners related to having their cars repaired.

Toyota and The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agree that the problem is likely sticky gas pedals, faulty floor mats and driver error rather than an electrical issue. So far, the car maker has paid more than $1 billion to settle claims related to the recalls, including a record $17.4 million fine to the U.S. government for failing to quickly report safety problems.

In addition to this settlement, Toyota has also begun to settle the various Wrongful Death lawsuits associated with its defective cars.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information