Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

Ohio Spangenberg Attorney Settles ATV Injury Case Pre-Suit

Nick DiCello — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:15:15 GMT

When used for recreation, ATVs can be a lot of fun. Furthermore, they have a wide range of utility for industrial use. As with any vehicle, however, there are dangers associated with ATVS. Understanding those dangers allows us to take the necessary precautions, including safety equipment, training, maintenance, and safe operation, to name a few. When an ATV does not operate as expected or is defective in its design or manufacturing, however, we are less able to protect ourselves from the dangers and risks inherent in operating an ATV.

The attorneys at Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber in Cleveland, Ohio recently settled claims on behalf of a woman who was seriously injured as a result of an ATV accelerating unexpectedly. In October of 2007, Cheryl Gaus was driving one of the family's two ATVs with her son on their rural property. After they stopped to observe some wildlife, Cheryl started the ATV which suddenly and unexpectedly accelerated at full throttle without Cheryl touching the throttel lever. Cheryl was thrown from the ATV as it violently surged forward, after which, the ATV continued riderless for several feet before finally striking a fence and flipping onto its side. Even then, however, it continued to spin its wheels.

Cheryl suffered multiple injuries, the most serious of which were fractured cervical vertabrae. Fortunately, Cheryl was not rendered paralyzed. Her recovery, however, was long and arduous.

Upon being contacted by the Gauses, the attorneys at Spangenberg quickly located and contacted a well-qualified expert in the field to inspect the machine and instructed the Gauses not to tamper with the ATV. An inspection identified a clear failure of the ATV to perform in the manner expected. Specifically, the throttle cable had failed to return to its closed (idle) position when Cheryl turned off the ignition. Therefore, when she re-started the machine, the throttle was engaged and the machine surged forward unexpectedly and was uncontrolable. With the help of the inspector, a report was prepared and submitted to the ATV manufacturer.

Spangenberg's understanding of defective ATV claims was essential to preserving the evidence and acquiring the information necessary to achieve early resolution.

If you or someone you know was injured while riding an ATV that may have been defectively designed or manufactured, or that otherwise failed to operate as expected, contact

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nick DiCello

Research Shows that Foreign Manufacturers Enjoy Favorable Status in U.S. Markets Forcing Society to Pay a High Price for Their Dangerous Products

Halli Brownfield — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:28:56 GMT

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) has recently released two research papers concluding that foreign manufacturers enjoy favorable status in American markets that imposes high costs on Americans.

The first paper, Defective Foreign Products in the United States: Issues and Discussion, argues that foreign producers "are protected by the complex web of laws, policies, and practices that make it difficult if not impossible to sue successfully foreign manufacturers in domestic courts." Not only is this bad for the American consumer, U.S. manufacturers are also negatively impacted. U.S. manufacturers who do face the prospect of tort liability must pay higher product liability insurance rates and cannot set their prices as low as foreign manufacturers. Professor Andrew Popper of American University Washington College of Law concludes that "[f]oreign manufacturers suffer few consequences from exporting popular and profitable products that are also inexpensive, untested, and deadly."

The Social Costs of Dangerous Products: An Empirical Investigation, the second paper released by the AAJ, concludes that the costs imposed by dangerous products are less than what is recovered through the tort system. This paper examined the costs associated with three known dangerous products: Ford SUV's with Firestone tires, the Baycol pharmaceutical drug, and ATVs (all terrain vehicles). The paper concludes that these three products created almost $4.7 billion in costs, including those associated with medical bills and lost wages.

To see the actual reports see

http://www.justice.org/he_Social_Costs_of_Dangerous_Products_An_Empirical_Investigation.pdf and

http://www.justice.org/Unavailable_and_Unaccountable.pdf.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Halli Brownfield

Stun Gun Maker Says Tasers Don't Kill

Halli Brownfield — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:41:54 GMT

The maker of Taser stun guns, Taser International, Inc., took Summit County Medical Examiner Dr. Lisa Kohler to court to challenge her conclusion that electrical pulses administered by its Tasers contributed to the deaths of three men. Dr. Kohler concluded that law enforcement officers' use of tasers to subdue these men was one of the contributing causes to their deaths. Taser International, Inc. brought suit in Summit County Common Pleas Court challenging this conclusion.

Judge Ted Schneiderman held a hearing on the issue. During this hearing, experts on both sides testified as to whether Tasers are capable of causing or contributing to death. In his ruling, Judge Schneiderman sided with Taser International, Inc. and concluded that there was no medical, scientific, or electrical evidence supporting Dr. Kohler's conclusion that these Tasers contributed to these mens' deaths. The Judge also ordered Dr. Kohler to remove any reference to the Tasers from her autopsy reports and death certificates.

Despite this court's ruling on the ability of Taser's to cause death, Taser use remains controversial. Amnesty International reports more than 100 deaths following administration of an electric shock by Tasers and other similar devices. Groups like Amnesty International are calling for more research to determine whether these Tasers are safe for law enforcement use and better instruction on appropriate use. Some studies concluding that they are safe have been criticized as being funded by Taser International, Inc.

For more information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Halli Brownfield

Defective Vehicle Owners Have No Recourse Until Its Too Late

Halli Brownfield — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:04:03 GMT

What legal recourse do you have if you learn that the vehicle you own has a common defect that has resulted in serious injury or even death to operators of the same type of vehicle? Unless you have already had a problem with that vehicle, the unfortunate answer is nothing. It is not uncommon to hear that certain makes and models of vehicles already on the market have a defect. The realization that some part of a vehicle has a problem can sometimes trigger a recall where the vehicle manufacturer remedies the defect at no cost to the vehicle's owner. These recalls can be voluntary or forced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But what happens when there hasn't been a recall? If you want to fix the problem, be ready to pay for it yourself.

Lawyers across the country have attempted to bring lawsuits forcing vehicle manufacturers to remedy common defects before that defect injures or kills someone. These lawsuits typically fail as courts repeatedly conclude that these owners whose vehicles have not yet malfunctioned have not suffered a legally cognizable injury. In these courts view, as long as the vehicle is functioning properly an owner has not been damaged even though the threat of malfunction poses serious safety concerns. Even in the face of documented incidents of serious injury and even death resulting from a defect in a vehicle that is likely common to all vehicles of the same make and model, courts will not force the vehicle manufacturer to do anything until there is a problem.

These decisions put vehicle owners in the lose/lose situation of either paying to fix the vehicle themselves or waiting until they have a problem in order to get the manufacturer to fix it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Halli Brownfield

Shims Bargain Inc. Recalls Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard

Jenny Albano — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:11:36 GMT

Shims Bargain Inc., in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling about 45,000 "BabyTown" Pacifiers due to a choking hazard.

These pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards for pacifiers. The pacifier shield is too small and could easily enter the mouth of an infant. Also, ventilation holes are too small and not placed to allow for the insertion of a tool to remove the pacifier when lodged in the mouth of a child. Finally, the package fails to display the required warning instructing consumers not to tie a pacifier around a child's neck, which would present a strangulation hazard.

The recalled pacifiers were sold in many different colors and came in a pack of 4. The name "BabyTown and the model # 39864 are lister on the product's packaging. So far there have not been any injuries reported to the company.

The pacifiers were sold at Dollar Stores across the U.S. form March 2004 to December 2007. The product was manufactured in China.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

ConAgra Reintroduces Peter Pan

Courtney Mills — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:18:34 GMT

After several months off the shelves, Con Agra Foods announced today it would introduce Peter Pan, its flagship brand of peanut butter, back into the market place. Consumers will recall that a salmonella outbreak in February 2007 caused millions of jars to be pulled from shelves. In all, over 600 consumers got food poisoning from salmonella-tainted jars of Peter Pan peanut butter. The outbreak forced Con Agra Foods to execute a recall in over 39 states, and caused quite an uproar in a company known for high quality standards.

ConAgra is confident that the company's redesigned jar and strong brand identification are sufficient to regain customer support held prior to the salmonella outbreak. ConAgra's next great challenge will be to handle the swell of personal injury lawsuits that hit the company as a result of the outbreak.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Sherwin-Williams Recalls Aerosol Cans Due to Risk of Serious Facial Injury

Jenny Albano — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:20:53 GMT

The CPSC and The Sherwin-Williams Co. are recalling about 3,000 Hi-Heat Aerosol Coating Cans because the cans can over-pressurize and explode, which poses a risk of serious facial or other injuries to consumers.

So far Sherwin-Williams has received one report of a consumer who has suffered injuries. The consumer suffered serious facial injuries which included a broken jaw, broken teeth, a broken nose, a split lip, and a shattered eye socket when the aerosol can exploded.

The recalled item is a Thermo-Tec Hi-Heat aerosol coating which is used to color and protect Thermo-Tec automotive exhaust wrap.

The part number (#12002) is printed above the UPC, and the date code (#B1815) is written on the bottom of the can. The 11-ounce aerosol can is mostly blue with orange and yellow flames and has an aluminum-colored cap. The can states "HI-HEAT COATING 2000Â°F" in large white letters on the front of the can.

The aerosol coating cans were available in automotive supply stores, repair shops, and parts suppliers all over the country. The product was sold from August 2005 through June 2007 and was manufactured in the United States.

Consumers are being warned not to handle the cans and to contact Sherwin-Williams as soon as possible. The company said they would send a representative within 48 to come and collect the recalled aerosol cans. Consumers will also receive a $15 check for each recalled item that the company collects.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Court of Claims Hears Evidence on Link Between Childhood Vaccinations and Autism

Rebecca Castell — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:43:52 GMT

On June 11, the Federal Court of Claims will hear a case on which looks to establish a clear link between childhood vaccinations, specifically vaccinations which contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, and autism.
If the court makes the connection, it will prove what many parents of autistic children have already believed to be true: that their child's autism is from the injection of mercury in the child's infancy.

Michelle Cedillo, a 12 year old who was born "normal" became severely handicapped by autism within a week after receiving her MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine. A toddler at the time, Michelle began to experience symptoms common with autism: loss of speech, constant pain, loss of bowel control and the inability to even respond to her own name.

The question of whether thimerosal leads to autism did not surface widely until the late 1990s. Parents and autism groups now point angrily to both government and drug company documents that show questions were being raised years earlier about the safety of the mercury preservative. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a controversial Rolling Stone article in 2005 accusing the government of "whitewashing" evidence of thimerosal's effects.
But the government, while phasing out the use of mercury preservatives in most vaccines, still says there is "no evidence of harm" from thimerosal. A 2004 study released by the Institute of Medicine, founded as part of the National Academy of Sciences, said the accumulation of scientific evidence "favors rejection of a causal relationship."
For many, that closed the debate, but for parents, bolstered by new studies that reach the opposite conclusion, as well as their own experiences, the connection is still apparent. Future test cases before the claims court will examine whether thimerosal alone, or the MMR vaccine alone, can also cause autism

Since 1999, more than 5100 claims have been made against vaccine manufacturers related to autism.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rebecca Castell

Walmart Recalls Baby Bibs

Paul Grieco — Thu, 03 May 2007 14:49:46 GMT

A recent newspaper article has notified the public of a recall of baby bibs. The discovery of lead in the fabric of a brand of baby bibs sold at Wal-Mart Stores has resulted in a recall of the items, the company said.

The bibs, sold under the Baby Connection brand name, came in packs of two to seven bibs, with embroidered prints or images of Sesame Street characters. Some were sold as long ago as 2004. The bibs were made by Hamco Inc. exclusively for the Bentonville-based retailer.Public health experts consider elevated levels of lead in blood a significant health hazard for children. Studies have repeatedly shown that childhood exposure to lead can lead to learning problems, reduced intelligence, hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder. There is no lead level that is considered safe in blood, and recent studies have shown adverse health effects even at very low levels.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a statement Wednesday saying that the bibs were safe if in good condition. However, if a bib "deteriorates to the point that a baby could pull or bite off and swallow a piece of vinyl containing the lead, then the amounts of lead consumed could approach levels of concern," the agency said.

Those who purchased the bibs in Illinois can return them at their local Wal-Mart for a full refund or can receive a free replacement by calling (877) 373-3812.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Grieco

Investigate Before You Buy

Paul Grieco — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:08:59 GMT

Every day consumers purchase all types of products for their homes, yards, vehicles, children and for their own personal use. Every day it seems as though we read in the paper or see on TV that a product is being recalled due to safety concerns. Before you spend your hard earned money on a particular product, investigate the product to make sure there are no active recalls or other safety issues concerning the product. A good place to start your investigation is at www.consumeraffairs.com.

Recently a client came to our office after sustaining a serious injury to his hand when the wheel rim on his snowblower exploded. It turn out that the particular snowblower had in fact been recalled for the very same defect that caused his injury. With so many internet resources available to the public, investigating the products you purchase a head of time can be simple.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Grieco