Articles Posted in Defective Products

Our Atlanta product liability attorneys are following recent news about Honda’s recall of 126,000 motorcycles with malfunctioning brakes, the second such recall done. These vehicle recalls show product defects in vehicles could potentially cause accidents, injuries, and even deaths.

The recalled motorcycles include GL-1800 motorcycles from 2001 through 2010, and those from 2012. Honda issued an initial recall of these motorcycles in December 2011, but continued receiving complaints. Honda told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the reason for the problem was undetermined, and they were still investigating the cause.

Through July 24 of this year, Honda received 533 complaints about problems with the bikes. It turns out the secondary brake master cylinder can cause the rear brake to drag, which in turn can cause a crash or fire. The complaints include reports of eight small fires; luckily, no reports of crashes or injuries related to these brake problems were received.

In good news from our federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals this week, a girl will have another shot at justice in her product liability case.

Amber Wright was 13-years-old when she went to a hair salon in Carollton, Georgia. It was February 2005, and she wanted blonde highlights. The licensed cosmetologist used a product manufactured by a company called Farouk Systems named “Blondest Blonde. The cosmetologist had used the product before and didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary, although Amber told her about feeling a burning sensation on her head. Things got worse from there, and nine days later the 13-year-old was in the emergency room with second and third degree burns on her scalp. Doctors stated that Amber had chemical burns, which can develop over time. Eventually, her burns were so severe that surgeons had to do a skin graft on her scalp.

Amber sued Farouk Systems for a defective product and failure to warn about potential scalp burns. Her trial had problems from the start, however. A chemist hired to testify was excluded under a Daubert ruling, which means the court found it did not meet scientific evidence standards. Her lawyers did not challenge that exclusion in the trial court. The lower court found that thus Amber had abandoned her product defect claims and therefore all her other evidence was inadmissible, and granted Farouk Systems summary judgment.

Monster Beverage Corp. faces multiple lawsuits claiming that product is linked to deaths and other serious health concerns.

Recently a lawsuit was filed against Monster Beverage Corp., manufacturers of the Monster Energy drink. The lawsuit was filed by a mother who alleges that her nineteen year old son died of cardiac arrhythmia last July due to his consumption of Monster Energy drinks. The mother claims that her son would not have died but for the fact that he drank two cans of Monster Energy drinks every day for the three years preceding his death.

Monster Beverage Corp. denies these allegations. They argue that there is no causal connection between the boy’s cardiac arrest and his consumption of Monster Energy drinks. The Company cites the coroner’s report which does not provide any indication that the boy died as a result of drinking Monster Energy drinks. They suggest that the facts show the boy drank Monster Energy drinks for years without incident.

A 2008 salmonella outbreak caused by tainted peanut butter is the subject of a trial currently underway in Georgia. The outbreak, which sickened 700 people and killed at least nine more, led to one of the largest food recalls in US history. Our Atlanta product liability attorneys have been following the case, which made the news again this week.

The 76-count indictment names Michael Parnell, the owner of Peanut Corporation of America, Mary Wilkerson, the plant’s quality assurance manager, and another former manager, Samuel Lightsey. The indictment accuses the company of shipping tainted products and hiding lab tests that showed they contained salmonella. Wilkerson is also charged with obstructing justice.

Lightsey pled guilty in May, agreeing to testify for the prosecution in exchange for a lighter sentence. In six days of testimony, Lightsey spoke of how the Peanut Corporation of America shipped contaminated products with falsified documents stating they were free of salmonella, and of the presence of mold and mildew within the plant. He also told the court of how employees used a pellet gun to shoot birds that got inside the plant.

Technology seems to be progressing at a crazy pace these days. Think of all the gadgets and things we take for granted now. So when our Atlanta product liability lawyers saw an article about driverless cars, it seemed like something that could possibly be not too far in the future of our lives. Google has a fleet of driverless cars and Audi and BMW are investing in the new technology too. Driverless cars are already being tested in some parts of the US.

Most car accidents are due to some kind of human error, whether negligent or reckless or otherwise. It is the number one cause of road accidents and as much as 90 percent of fatal car accidents are due to a human mistake. So theoretically, new driverless cars could save thousands of lives by reducing the risk of many accidents. It could especially counter the more extreme forms of dangerous driver behavior, such as road rage. And of course it could also impact drunk driving, as well, if those intoxicated could mainly, or someday entirely, depend on their car to drive them home.

The new question that will be faced once these driverless cars are on the roads is who will be liable in a car crash. The auto industry knows that there is a high likelihood of product liability law being more prevalent in car crash cases in the driverless future, although industry experts note that there will still, at least in the foreseeable future, be drivers in the car, just with less active driving than now. This is an issue that will have to be addressed and sorted out. Last year, Arizona introduced a law to cover driverless cars. Nevada and California have laws on the books about driverless cars, too, including a provision that requires a licensed driver to be in the car ready to take over driving at any time. So that driver would still have the potential for liability in crashes involving these new cars, as they do with regular driver-operated cars. It won’t be long before most states will have provisions to face this new technology. Jeff Dial, who introduced the Arizona law, said, “The more you deal with this issue, the more the issue grows and grows.One other idea to confront the product liability issue is to model driverless car liability after the way vaccine liability is handled. Congress created a special way to handle these cases in the 1980s, and now the cases go to special hearings and victims are paid through funding provided by a tax on vaccines.

Manufacturers, and the stores that sell their goods, know that they have a legal duty not to offer the public unsafe products with no warning. When an unsafe products slips through, there are laws that hold these companies legally and financially accountable for the injuries that result. However, our Atlanta injury lawyers understand that these companies often try to escape accountability for the harms that their products cause. For example, according to recent news accounts, a company called Blitz USA Inc, the makers of defective plastic gasoline cans, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc (where the defective gasoline cans were sold) are trying to use Blitz’s bankruptcy filings to avoid further product liability lawsuits.

At one point Blitz held 70 percent of the US market of gas cans. The main reason that it was forced into bankruptcy was because the company was hemorrhaging money from 36 product liability lawsuits for harm caused by the cans. The defective gas cans have caused severe damage to people who unsuspectingly suffered severe burns, usually from explosions. The company, based out of Oklahoma, has an insurance policy, but there is a $1 million deductible before the insurance kicks in. The court papers filed by Blitz in November stated that they had already spent $30 million defending these products liability suits stemming from the defective gas cans, which was a “debilitating expense for the company.The company also estimated it owed $3.5 million in lawyer’s fees over defending these lawsuits.

Blitz filed under Chapter 11 last November, which temporarily stopped all lawsuits against it. Recently, attorneys for Blitz asked the judge at the US Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware, to halt all related lawsuits against Wal-Mart as the retailer selling the allegedly defective goods. Wal-Mart is Blitz’s most important customer, so the company wants to protect Wal-Mart and is worried about the increasing number of these products liability suits. The bankruptcy judge refused the request to halt the lawsuits against Wal-Mart.

Premises are dangerous for a variety of reasons. Whether it is a faulty design, poor construction, and building materials, inadequate maintenance, or clutter that has not been removed. These dangerous premises may lead to falling, tripping, slipping, or an object falling on a person at the property.

When a property is dangerous, and that condition causes an injury, one may wonder who is legally responsible or the injuries. To determine liability under premises liability, you must speak with a personal injury advocate that has experience in these types of cases.

When it comes to consumer products, there are two types of warranties: Expressed and implied.

Expressed warranties are those that are clearly stated. These warranties may be printed on the product itself, discussed in a paper provided with the product, and more. The expressed warranty is very specific. Implied warranties cover the goods to a specific value, but only with a base level of protection.

Some motor vehicle accidents are caused by drivers. However, other can be caused by other factors such as dangerous roadways or even the cars themselves. A defective part on a vehicle can cause a driver to lose control in any number of situations. One situation could be an accelerator that gets stuck while the vehicle is being driven. Another example could be a defective braking system that won’t permit a vehicle to slow down.

Law of product liability

Motor vehicles are incredibly complex pieces of machinery with any number of parts that can be defectively dangerous. When a product is made available to the public and causes injury, its manufacturer, distributor, retailer, and others who pass it on into the stream of commerce can be found liable for the injuries that the product causes.

Consumers rely on auto manufacturers to issue recalls when an item on their vehicle models are found to be unsafe. Federal law, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requires automobile manufacturers to remedy recall issues at no charge to the vehicle owner, making the issuance of such recalls a lengthy and costly process. It should be no surprise then that GM has found a way to skirt this process by issuing “technical service bulletins” rather than recalls.

Misuse of Technical Service Bulletins

Auto manufacturers often issue bulletins to automotive service shops about mechanical problems, ranging from leaky hoses to problematic air conditioner switches, along with instructions for repairing such issues. Most of these technical service bulletins address non-safety matters, but a problem arises when auto manufacturers use these non-public communications to quietly take care of problems, avoiding a costly recall. Former head of the NHTSA, Joan Claybrook, recognizes that technical service bulletins have been widely used to avoid recalls.