Attorney Client Match Blog

With recent campaigns to educate the public about the dangers of cigarette smoking, e-cigarettes have been touted as a reasonable, more "healthy" and non-addictive alternative. It's an electronic device that creates a mist that can be inhaled. They run on batteries and use either heat or ultrasound to have an aerosol effect - giving users the look and feel of smoking, without actual smoke inhalation and nicotine. A report by the Boston University School of Public Health found that the level of carcinogens in electronic cigarettes was almost 1,000 times lower than the level found in regular cigarettes. But, as a consumer recently discovered, e-cigarettes also may harbor a unique risk of their own - a possible design defect that may soon give rise to an increased number of products liability lawsuits.

ABC News reported recently that a man is recovering in a Florida hospital after suffering severe burns when an e-cigarette exploded in his mouth. His wife told investigators that it sounded like a rocket had exploded in the house, and the chief fire inspector who responded to the scene immediately attributed the incident to a faulty rechargeable lithium battery. Product liability attorneys, however, know that the real cause has yet to be determined - and it's a determination that may one day take place in a court of law. Currently the use of e-cigarettes is not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which means that consumers who opt to use the devices basically do so at their own risk.

Continue reading "E-Cigarettes Don't Have the Nicotine, but Do Present a Risk: Product Liability Suit Likely" »

After weeks of anonymity as "Restaurant Chain A" in an investigation into a salmonella outbreak that infected dozens of people in ten states, Taco Bell has been identified as the "Mexican-style" restaurant chain linked to the dangerous infections. The salmonella outbreak, which occurred in October 2011, infected 68 people in total, mostly in Texas, and sent more than 20 people to the hospital, according to a January report by the Centers for Disease Control. Although no deaths were linked to the outbreak, Taco Bell may still be on the hook for possible products liability claims made by those who became ill and suffered personal injury as a result of eating its food products.

While the CDC and Food and Drug Administration officials were unable to pinpoint exactly what food product may have caused the outbreak, the report said "data indicat[ed] that contamination likely occurred before the product reached Restaurant Chain A locations." It was not until Wednesday that Restaurant Chain A was identified by Food Safety News as the fast food favorite Taco Bell, based on data provided by a health official at the Oklahoma State Department of Health. In that state, 16 people had been infected with salmonella.

In a document provided by the Oklahoma State Department of Health to ABC News, health officials noted that of the 16 cases, at least half of the victims had eaten at Taco Bell prior to their infections. Taco Bell noted in a statement to ABC News that the CDC had not discovered the definitive source of the outbreak and said the department only "indicated that some people who were ill ate at Taco Bell, while others did not." Accoridng to the statement made by Taco Bell, "We take food quality and safety very seriously."

The CDC kept Taco Bell's name out of their report in accordance with long-standing policy of not necessarily identifying restaurants involved in investigations as long as there is "not a public health threat." According to ABC News, CDC spokesperson Lola Russell stated, "By the time we posted information about this outbreak, it was over." She also stated, "If it was over, there would have been no public need to disclose it." Russell added that this latest case hasn't triggered conversations about changing the policy.

Continue reading "After Being Associated with a Salmonella Outbreak, Taco Bell May be Liable in Possible Products Liability Cases" »

The death of a new born child in Missouri has lead Wal-Mart stores to pull the brand of powdered bay formula that is possibly connected with the infant's death from its shelves. Wal-Mart has pulled the formula from its shelves as a precautionary measure, and likely to avoid exposing itself to any possible products liability or negligence lawsuits.

Avery Cornett, a new born from Lebanon, Missouri, who was less than one month old, died on December 18, 2011, from a rare infection. It is believed that Avery may be developed the infection as a result of ingesting powdered baby formula that his parents purchased from a local Wal-Mart store. According to the Washington Post, the powdered baby formula that Avery ingested was Enfamil Newborn Formula. A week after Avery was born, his parents took him to their pediatrician after he showed signs of stomach pain and lethargy. When the pain persisted the next day, his parents took him to the emergency room. That following Sunday, little Avery died as the hospital after being taken off of life support.

As a result of baby Avery's death, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is conducting an investigation in order to determine exactly what caused Avery's death. The Washington Post reports that not only is the FDA investigation the death, but the Centers for Disease Control and the Missouri Department of Health and also investigating. So far, investigators have collected samples from the family and are testing unopened formula purchased at stores. Public health investigators will look at the formula itself, as well as the water used in preparing it and at anything else the baby might have ingested.

Thus far, it has not been definitively determined whether the Enfamil formula lead to Avery's sickness and subsequent death. According to the Washington Post, preliminary hospital tests indicated that Avery died of a rare infection caused by bacteria known as Cronobacter sakazakii. The infection can be treated with antibiotics, but it's deemed extremely dangerous to babies less than 1 month old and those born premature. According to Christopher Perille, a spokesman for Enfamil, which is based in the Chicago suburb of Glenview, the bacteria are "pervasive in the environment. There's a whole range of potential sources on how this infection may have got started." Perille is correct in that the bacteria occur naturally in the environment and in plants such as wheat and rice. However, the most worrisome appearances have been in dried milk and powdered formula, which is why manufacturers routinely test for the germs.

Continue reading "Death of a New Born Baby Leads Wal-Mart to Pull Baby Formula from Shelves" »

Products liability attorneys know all about the "hot coffee" case. It has been heralded as the quintessential example of a frivolous lawsuit. In 1994, a 79 year-old Texas woman sued McDonald's after she spilled the entire contents of a Styrofoam cup of joe onto her lap. The details of exactly what happened have been muddled over the years. Some claim the accident was entirely her fault; she was multi-tasking while driving her car and she should have known that the liquid was hot. It was, after all, coffee. It turns out that the prevalent theories may not be quite true.

At least, that is what former Oregon plaintiff's lawyer Susan Saladoff claims in her new pro-plaintiff's documentary entitled "Hot Coffee." The woman wasn't driving the car, her grandson was. And anyway, the facts show the car was at a complete stop while she was trying to prepare it and its temperature was a whopping 190 degrees. At the time, most other restaurants served their morning beverages at a much lower temperature of 150-160 degrees. McDonald's claims the high temperature was necessary to maintain "premium taste," but their own research showed that over 800 people had reported similar experiences - an indication, the judge said, that the company willfully and recklessly conducted its business at the time. As for the plaintiff, she suffered third-degree burns over much of her lower body and spent eight days in the hospital. The case was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

While McDonald's policies have long since been modified, Saladoff felt it necessary to highlight cases like these in her film because, she told the National Law Journal, the plight of the plaintiff is often overlooked. "The other side of this issue has monopolized the conversation because of the amount of money they have," she said. She decided to make the film after 25 years of practicing law. "After 25 years, the truth is you get sort of worn down," she said.

As a plaintiff's personal injury lawyer, I can certainly see where Saladoff is coming from. Oftentimes the defendants do indeed have more resources, especially since they are often large companies with a huge financial backing and an outstanding public reputation. The plaintiff becomes a small fish wallowing in a large pond when it comes to cases like this. Saladoff also points out another interesting view. "...Juries became less sympathetic and winning became harder. It would get me angry that I couldn't tell my clients that I could get them justice" she says. This film, she hopes, will at least start the conversation that will change everything.

Continue reading "Former Lawyer Uses Infamous "Hot Coffee" Case to Stir up" »

There's no doubt that tobacco is a booming business - and products liability issues have no qualms about riding in on the coattails of success. Many consumers' complaints stem from the assertion that tobacco companies knew about and concealed the risks associated with smoking, and it certainly has been a quarter of a century since the U.S. has seen a significant change to its cigarette packs. The most recent alteration was in the 1980s and mandated a warning label - a small box with black and white text that could easily be overlooked.

Now, says the Associated Press, the Food and Drug Administration has released nine new warning labels that depict "in graphic detail the negative effects of tobacco use" and are sure to make the average consumer take a second look. Among the photos are: the corpse of a smoker, diseased lungs, teeth and gums and a mother holding her baby with smoke swirling around them. The accompanying phrases will serve to highlight the long-term effects of tobacco use, as will the inclusion of the number to a national quitting hotline. The graphic warning labels were required in a 2009 law that gave the federal government authority to regulate tobacco for the first time in our nation's history, and advocates against smoking, like the American Cancer Society, hope that it will effectively deter non-smokers from picking up the habit. It may have some major implications for personal injury litigation as well.

An experienced plaintiff's products liability lawyer knows that tobacco lawsuits are already very complex and difficult to litigate. For example, claims for personal injuries resulting from the use of tobacco products that relate to promotional or advertising communications or the adequacy of warnings are subject to the federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and must be brought under that Act rather than under comparable state law. Even more importantly, assumption of risk has long been a choice defense for tobacco companies and now that the warning on the pack is being made more prominent, it may become even more difficult to litigate such cases - especially when juries feel there were stronger contributing factors to the plaintiff's illness or are convinced that the plaintiff was made aware of the risks of smoking and chose to accept those risks.

Still, anyone harmed by tobacco products should not shy away from contacting an attorney about the legal rights and remedies available. These cases are very difficult and persons who pursue them should understand that they come with a great deal of risk. The defendants are unlikely to settle the case which will need to go to trial. In addition, parties should expect an appeal at the end of the trial. These factors should not necessarily deter persons from pursuing a case, but persons simply need to go into the litigation with their eyes wide open. Plaintiffs have been successful in pursuing these cases and, of course, the attorney generals of various states also were able to obtain substantial relief from the tobacco manufacturers.

In a fairly major nod towards products liability issues in the toy industry, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health Canada are warning consumers about toy helicopters and parts with model numbers BLH350, BHL3500 and BHL3514 that were sold at retailers during March of this year. As an Atlanta personal injury lawyer, I know that the reality of this recall is that children have suffered an injury.

Toy safety is a pervasive issue for concerned parents that continues to rear its ugly head. Dangers come in all forms - from faulty or too small parts to hazardous toxins and chemicals. Over the past 25 years, the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) has helped to identify many of these risks. Their efforts, the efforts of similar organizations, and an unprecedented amount of toy recalls and injuries undoubtedly helped drive Congress to make a more substantial and overt move towards rectifying the situation.

In this particular case, approximately 18,000 sold in the United States and Canada are being voluntarily recalled because they pose potential impact and laceration hazards. There have been 312 reports of the rotor blades of these models being released from the motor head. 34 of those incidents resulted in a user being struck, and another 12 resulting in lacerations to a user's person, according to the CPSC.

Continue reading "Recall of Toy Helicopters Highlights Hazards to Children - Product Liability Claims Likely" »

Jump houses come in all forms and cater to children's imaginations: slides, castles, ships, even obstacle courses. They offer parents much needed respite during outdoor playtime and are a popular item at parties. However, as a personal injury attorney in Atlanta, I know that, on breezy afternoons, they can also come with many perils. An accident this summer hammered home these little-known hazards when a gust of wind suddenly sent three inflatables at a youth soccer tournament soaring into the air - with children inside. According to the Associated Press, a mother was seriously injured when one landed on her, but the children only suffered minor bumps and bruises.

An AP interview with Jim Barber, a spokesman for the National Association of Amusement Ride Safety Officials, revealed that accidents like these happen all the time. In fact, the situation is so severe that in 2001, the Consumer Product Safety Commission came out with a bulletin on how to safely operate inflatable products. A 2005 report linked the growing popularity of inflatables with an increasing number of injuries treated at hospital emergency rooms from 1997 to 2004. One of the best manners of determining a safety issue with a product is to evaluate the number of emergency room visits that result from the use of the product. An increase in emergency room visits over a 7 year period of time points to a real issue with inflatables.

Interestingly enough, the real problem may not be with the huge toys themselves, but with the people who supervise them. Guidelines for carnival, fair and amusement parks rides are fairly strict, but bouncy houses are usually not included in this category. Many states lack regulations that monitor the training requirements for handlers and operators. This is, I think, because such laws are created at the state level and many legislators are not yet aware of the real problems posed. Perhaps this incident, and the media attention it's garnering, will be the catalyst that inspires lawmakers to take a closer look at what can be done to ensure the safety of our children.

I think there are several things that can be done statutorily and with regulations to improve safety in this area. First, states need to pass a law that requires operators and installers of inflatables to become licensed. In order to become licensed, a person installing these devices would need to undergo a safety instruction course that explains their proper installation from an independent third party. Second, states need to pass regulations that address the manner in which inflatables are anchored. The problems often arise due to the failure of the installer to properly secure the inflatable to the ground. Third, a review does need to occur with respect to the design of these devices. The amount of anchorage needs to be tied to the weight of the inflatable. In the end, whether it's the children inside or the innocent bystander, persons will be injured if the states fail to take action to make sure inflatables are safe.