|
 Product Liability
Product Liability involves injuries or death caused by a product defect. Often, through neglect or a desire to save money, manufacturers and other companies create products that injure and kill people. Often, such cases involve a “strict liability,” meaning that whether or not negligence has occurred, the manufacturer is still liable. If a defect in the product results in injury or death, then the manufacturer or defendant can be held liable.
All products must be engineered, manufactured, and labeled correctly. As a consumer, you have the right to assume that the product you use is safe. When it is not, and an individual is injured or dies, the manufacturer (and sometimes engineer, retailer, or wholesaler) may be held liable.
Personal injury law surrounding products liability stems from the manufacturer’s failure to design safeguards for their products’ foreseeable uses as well as warn of known and reasonably foreseeable hazards associated with the use of the product. The consumer must also read and heed all warnings and labels provided by the manufacturer. When the consumer upholds his or her responsibilities and is still injured, however, he or she may sue the manufacturer for manufacturing and marketing a faulty product.
Our products liability experience includes vehicles, aircraft, boats, motorcycles, ATV’s, industrial machines, car seats, cribs, etc. We also handle pharmaceutical / drug products claims on a national level (Vioxx, Lariam, Oxycontin, Accutane, Fen Phen, Absestos / Mesothelioma) as well as claims against the manufacturers of medical devices such as pacemakers, optical implant lenses and artificial hips and knees). Theses case includes other injuries and claims resulting from design, marketing, or manufacturing defects caused by manufacturers, retailers, and wholesalers.
We have a long history of working to compensate victims of these companies. If you have suffered an injury due to a product defect, please contact us for a free consultation.
Representative Verdicts and Settlements
Intra Ocular Lens/Packaging defects
C. A. v. Doe Corporation: San Bernardino, California.
$3.745 million settlement for improper packaging resulting in damage to intra-ocular device, requiring surgical removal in some cases; causing permanent eye damage in others.
Sports-Utility Vehicle/Rollover
M/A v. Doe Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts
$4.5 million dollar settlement: $3.5 million for 23 year-old female driver who suffered brain injury and paraplegia; $1.25 million for wrongful death of her 21 year-old brother/passenger. Plaintiffs allege vehicle was inherently unstable and uncontrollable when making a high speed avoidance maneuver. Vehicle rolled over 5 times and roll bar crushed both driver and passenger. Defendants alleged excessive speed and inattention of the driver.
Passenger Van/Rear Gas Tank Explosion
Estate of A, B and C v. Doe Corporation, San Jose, California
$5.75 million dollar settlement for 5 decedents (ages 82, 47, 16, 12 and 8). Van with “hang down/split” gas tank was struck by bullet vehicle traveling at 100+ mph after making an illegal u-turn across an unlit highway at night. Plaintiffs alleged van’s gas tank and fuel neck were defectively designed and that the sliding door’s locking mechanism jammed, trapping the back seat passengers in the van while it burned.
Sedan Rollover/Door Latch Failure
James S. v. Doe Corporation, Sacramento, California
$4.0 million dollar settlement for front seat passenger who was rendered paraplegic after being ejected through passenger door during slow speed rollover. Plaintiffs alleged that the door latch was defectively designed and that compressive forces generated during the rollover caused the latch to bypass and the door to open. Defendant alleged that plaintiff was ejected through the passenger window, had suffered his injury by striking the interior roof of the vehicle and was not wearing his seatbelt.
Industrial Washing Machine/No Front Loading Door Interlock
Estate of O v. Roe Corporation
$1.5 million settlement for plaintiffs’ decedent, a married 28 year-old father of twins, was killed while loading wet laundry into the subject machine which had to be spun while loading to evenly distribute the load. Plaintiffs alleged that the machine’s front loading door should have been equipped with an electrical “lock-out” device which would prevent the drum from spinning during the loading cycle. Defendant’s manufacturer and supplier/installer, alleged plaintiffs’ decedent was negligent during the loading process by not having another worker help him and that he had wedged a piece of wood into the push button operation control.
Industrial Masa Mixer/Failure to Equip with Lock-Out Device
Estate of G. v. Doe Corporation, San Bernardino, California
$1.0 million dollar (policy limits) settlement for family of decedent who was killed when a coworker turned on a top loading mixer machine while decedent was still inside cleaning it. Plaintiffs alleged that the top loading door should have been equipped with an electric “lock-out” which would have prevented the mixer drum from turning when the top door was open.
Industrial Stamping Machine/Failure to Equip with Applicable Guards
E.M. v. Doe Corporation, Los Angeles, California
$2.0 million dollar settlement for 52 year-old machine worker ($1.5 million) and wife ($100,000) and waiver of Workers Compensation lien ($400,000). Machine worker lost 4 fingers of left/minor hand and his wife claimed loss of consortium. Plaintiffs alleged that the portion of the machine which stamped the copper plates fed by a conveyor was not properly guarded and should have been equipped with a barrier guard.
|
Powered by Nukedit -