Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

Pennsylvania Couple Sues Target After Wicker Trunk Leaves Toddler Severely Injured

David Mittleman — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:07:09 GMT

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania—a couple has filed a lawsuit against Target, alleging that the company improperly marketed a wicker trunk that they used as a toy chest. As a result, they maintain that their baby’s neck became trapped underneath the lid of the trunk, depriving her of oxygen, and leaving her in a persistent vegetative state.

According to the couple’s complaint, the girl’s mother, Laura Surman was preparing to leave for work when she discovered her 18-month-old daughter trapped beneath the lid of the wicker trunk. The lid had apparently collapsed on the baby and deprived her of oxygen to the brain resulting in spastic quadriplegia, severe psychomotor mental retardation and an inability to speak.

The family is seeking punitive damages and cites Target’s blatant disregard for safety. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the trunk offered no resistance to support the lid in the upright position to prevent it from slamming shut. The family’s attorneys included in the complaint several customer reviews from Target’s website where other parents touted the trunk’s ability to work as a toy chest for young children. Additionally, the lawsuit also cites statistics from the Consumer Product Safety Commission that show that at least 45 children have died of trunk lids falling and trapping them inside. Overall, the family’s attorneys maintain that Target should have either made the chest safe by adding the supports for the lid or labeled the product unsafe for use as a child’s toy box.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

McDonald's Faces Another "Frivolous Lawsuit" Over Extremely Hot Food

David Mittleman — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:25:02 GMT

The McDonald’s “hot coffee” case is often pointed at as the poster child for frivolous lawsuits, at least by tort reformers. Unfortunately, many people don’t know the actual details of that case, or the severe injuries that Stella Liebeck suffered as the result of the cup of McDonald’s coffee that spilled in her lap—coffee that wasn’t just hot, but was actually scalding. It is important to note the actual facts of the case-- much of which was left out of most stories you will find on the Internet or elsewhere—before writing Stella’s case off as a “frivolous lawsuit”.

Stella was a 79-year-old grandmother at the time of the incident, and she was riding in her grandson’s car. Her grandson had pulled over to the side of the road to allow Stella to add cream and sugar to her coffee. The car was not moving, as many tort-reform hawks would like the public to believe. When Stella pulled the lid off of the coffee cup, the exceedingly hot coffee spilled onto her lap and onto the seat beneath her. She was wearing cotton jogging pants. McDonald’s admitted that the coffee was served at a scalding 190 degrees—hot enough to cause third degree burns within 2-7 seconds (according to expert testimony). She did, in fact, suffer serious burns to her thighs, buttocks, and genitals. She was taken to the hospital, where doctors determined that she had suffered third-degree burns. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent painful skin grafting. Thereafter, she underwent two years of treatment. Although McDonald’s admitted that they knew the cup of coffee was exceedingly hot, they tried to cover up for their reckless conduct by claiming that they purposefully served the coffee at a high temperature because company research showed that customers want to drive a distance before drinking the coffee. However, their own research also indicated that some customers intended to drink the coffee immediately after purchase. So what was it? Well, the truth is that McDonald's had known for over a decade that their coffee was burning people (over 700 claims, some including third degree burns) and yet did nothing about it.

Now, McDonald’s is facing another similar suit. Except the dangerously hot food isn’t coffee, it’s a grease-filled fried chicken sandwich. Specifically, when Frank Sutton took a bite into the sandwich, scalding grease “flew all over his mouth” according to another diner who witnessed the incident. To ease the burn, Sutton’s wife attempted to apply ice from her drink to his lips, but they blistered anyway and Mr. Sutton proceeded to the counter to complain to an employee. The employee’s response was “this is what happens [to the sandwiches] when they aren’t drained completely”. The next morning, Mr. Sutton discovered that his lips had bled on his pillow and seven months later his lips still hadn’t healed. He was even forced to avoid particular work assignments that would worsen his condition, since his job required a lot of time outdoors. As a result, Mr. Sutton sued McDonald’s and the local franchisee for his medical bills, pain and suffering and lost wages. However, a federal district court originally dismissed his case, ruling that he failed to prove what standard of care McDonald’s was required to meet in handling its food. Despite that ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the decision and reinstated the suit, arguing that if the account of the incident is true, then it could constitute a violation of Virginia’s food safety laws. It will be up to a jury now to decide. While we don’t know the final outcome of the case, we can surely expect that critics of so-called “frivolous lawsuits” will be quick to jump all over Mr. Sutton the same way they did to Stella Liebeck.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Tragedy Averted After Runaway Prius Goes on Speeding Spree

David Mittleman — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:45:18 GMT

A California Highway Patrol Officer helped avert tragedy yesterday after yet another Toyota Prius underwent a sudden acceleration that left the driver panicked for help. 61-year-old Prius owner James Sikes found himself at the mercy of his runaway Prius after accelerating to pass another vehicle on I-8 in San Diego County.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0aVipFR34

As his vehicle sped up, Mr. Sikes pressed on the brake pedals so hard he could smell them burning, but his vehicle continued to speed up. After calling 911, Sikes was provided assistance by a patrol car that pulled alongside him. The officers instructed Mr. Sikes to use his emergency brake as well as push his brake pedal to the floor.

After the car slowed down to 50 miles per hour, Mr. Sikes was instructed to turn off the engine and the Prius coasted to a stop. Toyota vehicles have been under heavy scrutiny with more than 8.5 million vehicles being recalled due to numerous dangerous defects.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Toyota Line Workers Warned Top Officials of Safety Problems In 2006

David Mittleman — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:45:01 GMT

Toyota’s mistakes continue to abound: recent reports indicate that several veteran assembly line workers warned senior management of their increasing concerns over the safety of Toyota vehicles several years before the recent sudden acceleration problems and other safety issues. The six veteran workers knew they could lose their jobs, but decided to send the memo to top Toyota officials anyway back in 2006. They simply could not sit by idly as they watched a troubling trend continue. That is, with an increasing U.S. demand for fuel-efficient vehicles, the automaker had kicked production into high gear. But that wasn’t all they did—while also increasing production, they made drastic cuts to safety and manpower to lower production costs—a move that the veteran workers feared would cost Toyota its reputation in the future. They were right.

In the memo, the workers stated:

That from 2000 to 2005 Toyota had recalled more than 5 million cars, or 36% of all vehicles sold, a rate higher than other companies.
That Toyota’s failure to act on the worker’s concerns may "become a great problem that involves the company's survival."
They also added: "We are concerned about the processes which are essential for producing safe cars, but that ultimately may be ignored, with production continued in the name of competition."

The workers didn’t need to worry about the safety of their jobs, as they previously had. Instead, after presenting the letter to management, they were simply ignored and business continued as usual. Nevertheless, Toyota officials recently stated that they could not confirm that they received the memo and did not comment any further on the veteran workers’ allegations.

The assembly workers also cited deterioration in the working condition of Japanese factories, as well as a decline in product quality. In fact, assembly worker Tadao Wakatsuki, age 62 and a 30-year Toyota veteran, recently gave a litany of concerns in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, including increased outsourcing of key design work and a shorter trial-and-error period for testing new vehicles.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Toyota Owners Report Persisting Sudden Acceleration Problems After Recall "Fixes"

David Mittleman — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:19:26 GMT

Despite Toyota executives’ assurances that safety recalls are solving the potentially fatal car problems, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently reported receiving 10 new complaints from Toyota owners who allege that the recall “fixes” aren’t working and that sudden acceleration is still a problem.

In fact, one woman who had her 2009 Toyota Matrix serviced on February 10 for gas and brake pedal issues reported that her car was still uncontrollable on February 26. The woman reported to the NHTSA:

"I was driving about 5 MPH in a parking area with my son. I put my foot on the brake and I felt the car push forward… my son said ‘It's doing it again Mom!’”

Furthermore, a 2008 Toyota Avalon owner reported backing the car out of their driveway just a few days after having it serviced “when it accelerated on its own” and did “three loops around the garage area of the home” leading to damaged property and a wrecked car.

There were several other angry consumers that reported persisting sudden acceleration problems with their supposedly “fixed” Toyotas to the NHTSA. However, Toyota executives maintain that they are “confident that Toyota vehicles are safe” and have "received the needed information to contact four of the concerned vehicle owners and are making preparations to quickly investigate their concerns."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Meijer Added To List of Retailers Affected by Window Blind and Shade Recall

David Mittleman — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:15 GMT

Attention Meijer’s shoppers: according to recent reports about 245,000 window blinds and shades were recalled, many sold at Meijer stores, because children’s necks can become entangled in the pull cord attached to the shade. Luckily, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has reported no accidents or injuries related to the recalled blinds.

Meijer voluntarily pulled its “At Home With Meijer” Roman shades and roll-up blinds when the CPSC announced an original recall of blinds and shades in December, which affected all major retailers. However, the CPSC inadvertently left Meijer off the list of affected retailers in that news release and is now issuing another release that does include Meijer stores.

The recall involves all Innovations and “At Home With Meijer” Roman shades and roll-up blinds and were sold at Meijer stores between January 2004 and December 2009 for about $40. Meijer requests that consumers immediately stop using the affected blinds and contact the Window Covering Safety Council for a free repair kit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

GM to Recall 1.3M cars for steering problem

David Mittleman — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:30:03 GMT

Amid the backdrop of Toyota's recall and deceptive tactics fiasco, General Motors announced that it is recalling 1.3 Million cars to fix power steering motors that may fail. GM's massive recall encompasses vehicles ranging from the 2005 to 2010 Chevy Cobalt to 2007-2010 Pontiac G5s sold in the US. Vehicles sold to Canada and Mexico are also included.

GM claims that the vehicles are still safe to drive but admits that there may be difficulties with steering when the vehicles are traveling under 15 miles per hour. According to GM a warning light and chime will indicate if the steering fails, but drivers could still be alarmed if they encounter difficulty steering.

The recall will affect older models first, because the defect usually does not take effect until the vehicle has been driven 20,000 to 30,000 miles.

The recall of 1.3 million vehicles, while immense, pales in comparison to the over 8 million recalls issued by Toyota after what appears to be a prolonged period of time where Toyota was fully aware of potential safety hazards with their vehicles.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Toyota Withheld Crash Lawsuit Evidence

David Mittleman — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:16:44 GMT

According to Congressman Edolphus Towns, Toyota deliberately withheld key vehicle design and testing evidence in lawsuits filed by Toyota drivers injured in crashes due to faulty Toyota cars. Representative Towns is chairman of the oversight committee and sent a letter to Toyota's top North American executive that accused Toyota of settling cases with injured parties before having to disclose its testing data on potential problems with Toyota vehicles.

To put it in Representative Towns's own words, Toyota's internal documents "show a systematic disregard for the law and routine violation of court discovery orders in litigation." Toyota responded by stating that it is common for defendants to object to demands for documents made in lawsuits.

The federal regulators involved in this extended saga have accused Toyota of concealing safety problems over cases of sudden unintended acceleration due to gas pedal problems. This claim made by the House of Representatives only goes to further substantiate Toyota's overall climate of secrecy and profit-over-safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Remember When Jessica Simpson Tried Ear Candling? Don't Copy Her, FDA Warns

David Mittleman — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:16:07 GMT

Remember when I wrote about Jessica Simpson and the growing popularity of ear candling? Well, now the Food and Drug Administration is really serious about the danger of putting a candle in your ear. Recently, both the FDA and Health Canada issued important alerts about the products, including warning manufacturers and issuing injunctions and seizing shipments.

Manufacturers of ear candling products market the candles as treatments for removing earwax buildup, sinus infections, even for improving hearing loss. Some ear candle companies also promote the products as capable of purifying blood, strengthening the brain, curing cancer—even as appropriate for use in children. But don’t fall for the gimmicks: the FDA not only believes that there is “no valid scientific evidence for any medical benefit” from using ear candles, but what’s more disconcerting is that ear candles can cause serious injuries.

Among injuries reported by former ear candle users, there have been burns to the face, ear canal, eardrum and middle ear. Fires have occurred because of people wiggling while having the hot wax drip into their ear. Sadly, others relied on ear candles for treating their illnesses and became sicker because they failed to seek appropriate medical treatment for a serious condition. Please don’t use ear candles, even if Jessica Simpson is doing it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Hot Dogs: American Classic or Choking Hazard on a Bun?

David Mittleman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:09:58 GMT

Hot dogs have been demonized over their poor nutritional content, but now pediatricians are urging food companies to include a warning label on packages for a different reason: their choking hazard to babies or young children. While the call for warning labels on a seemingly harmless food may seem ridiculous, it’s no laughing matter. Just ask any parent whose had to perform the Heimlich maneuver on a choking child.

According to recent reports, the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn’t just want a warning label on hot dogs—they would rather have the food “redesigned” so that the size, shape and texture would make it less likely for a hot dog to become lodged in a child’s throat. This might not be a bad idea considering 10,000 children a year under the age of 14 go to the emergency room after choking on food, including hot dogs. Sadly, 77 children a year die from asphyxiation, with 17% of those deaths specifically caused by hot dogs.

To put it into context, the Consumer Product Safety Commission requires warning labels on toys with small parts that could pose a choking hazard. However, no such warnings exist for foods, though half of non-fatal choking episodes involve food. However, while Janet Riley, the president of the National Hot Dog & Sausage Council does agree that parents and caregivers should be properly educated on choking prevention, she doesn’t agree with the warning label idea. Instead, she argues that many hot dogs already have choking-prevention tips on their packages and that parents can “redesign” the food in their own kitchens by cutting cylindrical foods, like hotdogs, into smaller pieces.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman