What Does Tainted Egg Recall Mean For Your NY Food Poisoning Lawsuit?

Long Island, New York food poisoning and defective products attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses the impact of the massive tainted egg recall on a particular food poisoning case under New York law. For additional information on the 3 fatal mistakes to a food poisoning lawsuit, please see http://www.jonathancooperlaw.com/library/3-avoidable-mistakes-can-destroy-your-food-poisoning-lawsuit-in-ny.cfm, or contact Jonathan Cooper directly at 516-791-5700.

Fan Hit By Broken Bat Sues NY Mets, MLB and Bat Manufacturer For Defective Bats

Long Island, New York accident and defective product attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses a product liability case that was recently brought against Major League Baseball the New York Mets and a baseball bat manufacturer by a fan who was hit in the face by a broken bat, and suffered severe personal injuries. For additional information on how product liability actions are analyzed under New York law, please download a Free copy of Jonathan Cooper's book, Why Are There So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits? from www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com, or contact Jonathan Cooper directly at 516-791-5700.

Why It's So Important to Find Qualified Experts in a NY Products Liability Case

Long Island, New York products liability and defective baby products lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how a recent decision from one of New York's appellate courts highlights why hiring appropriately qualified experts is absolutely critical to the success of a products liability case in New York. For additional information on this topic, please see http://www.jonathancooperlaw.com/library/the-most-important-issue-before-you-start-a-ny-products-liability-case.cfm, or contact Jonathan Cooper directly at 516-791-5700.

When Companies (Dell) Resort to Absurdities to Conceal Defective Product Design

Long Island, New York defective design and product lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how the attorneys prosecuting the defective design claims against Dell computer revealed the sordid details of the computers' failures, and how this provides a textbook example of how to prove a defective design claim under New York law. For additional information on how to prove a defective design claim under New York law, please see http://www.jonathancooperlaw.com/library/how-to-prove-that-a-product-was-defectively-designed-under-ny-law.cfm, or contact Jonathan Cooper directly at 516-791-5700.

Brooklyn Park Removes Defective (and Ridiculous) $84,000 Playground Equipment

Long Island, New York child injury and defective products attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses how a Brooklyn park was forced to remove defective playground equipment, and whether the manufacturer's claim that it complied with all relevant safety guidelines would effectively preclude a lawsuit against them. For additional information on how to prove a defective design claim for a children's product, please see http://www.jonathancooperlaw.com/library/how-to-prove-that-a-product-was-defectively-designed-under-ny-law.cfm, or contact Jonathan Cooper directly at his Long Island, New York office at 516-791-5700.

In Defective Design Case, NY Court Raises Award from $500,000 to $1.25 Million

In a May 11 decision regarding a products liability case that was tried to verdict, New York's highest court upheld a trial court's decision to raise the jury's award of $500,000 to $1.25 million. For additional information on products liability cases under New York law, readers are encouraged to order a Free copy of Long Island, New York product liability attorney Jonathan Cooper's book, Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Product Lawsuits from www.ProductLiabilityBook.com, or by contacting Jonathan Cooper directly at his Long Island office at 516.791.5700.

NY Jury Finds Clothing Retailer Negligent, But Not Liable, For Plaintiff's Burns

In this article, Long Island, NY products liability lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how in one recent case, a NY jury held that the defendant was negligent - but not liable - for failing to test properly the product that they sold. For additional, general information on product liability cases under New York law, please visit www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com.

Queens Court Dismisses Childrens' Mold Exposure Claims As Untimely

In this blog post, Long Island, NY discusses a decision from today's New York Law Journal which highlights some of the difficulties in bringing actions based upon toxic mold exposure, including with respect to children. For additional information on these topics, please visit www.JonathanCooperLaw.com or contact Jonathan Cooper directly at his Long Island office at 516.791.5700.

Shocker: Toyota's "Fixes" Of Gas Pedal Defect Apparently Don't Work

In this blog post, Long Island, New York Toyota recall and products liability attorney and author of "Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits" Jonathan Cooper discusses how, by attempting to conceal the problems with their cars (which they apparently still have not fixed), Toyota has certainly earned the public's distrust. For additional information on product recalls and how they affect defective products lawsuits generally, you can download a Free copy of Jonathan Cooper's eBook on defective products lawsuits under New York law at www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com, or contact him directly at his Long Island, New York office at 516.791.5700.

Preemption: Why Some Failure to Warn Claims in NY Are Barred By Federal Law

In this article, Long Island, New York defective products lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses how the doctrine of Federal Preemption effectively bars some failure to warn claims. For additional Free information on defective products lawsuits generally, and how they operate under New York law, please visit www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com, or contact Mr. Cooper directly at his Long Island office at 516.791.5700.

NY Times Editorial: How Toyota's Efforts To Conceal Its Design Defects Became A Whole Web of Lies

Toyota either has, or is about to learn, that the problem with going to desperate measures to conceal design defects with your product lines is that you can go too far, and then get caught in your own web of lies. As noted in a New York Times editorial that was published this past Friday, Toyota's claim that the federal safety agency had found no defects with their cars where the floor mat was compatible with the vehicle and properly secured was patently false.

Now, Toyota has essentially been forced to issue a product recall of over 4 million vehicles, roughly 3 times the number of vehicles it sold in North America in the past year. And, looking forward, I imagine this is only a small part of Toyota's problem, because I don't see how anyone in their right mind would trust a representation from either Toyota or the government (which, in fact, did look the other way on some of these problems until they mushroomed) that these defective designs, whether with regard to the sudden acceleration, the "sticky" gas pedals, or problematic driver-side mats had been remedied, and the cars were once again safe to be driven.

Stated differently, how can Toyota convince anyone to buy one of their products?

CPSC Launches New Product Registration Initiative - But They Can - And Should - Do Better

In this article, Long Island, New York children's safety and defective products attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses how the CPSC's newest initiative to improve product registrations is welcome, but falls short of the mark in enhancing the defective product recall process. For additional information on these topics, please download Jonathan Cooper's Free eBook entitled "Why Are There So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits?" from www.ProductLiabilityBook.com.

CPSC Announces Largest Defective Children's Crib Recall Ever

Published author of the Insider's Guide to Product Liability Claims entitled "Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits," discusses the largest children's crib recall in history. For additional articles and valuable information on crib recalls and other defective product recalls generally, please visit Long Island, New York Defective Products Lawyer's website and blog at www.JonathanCooperLaw.com.

CPSC's Mass Recall of Defectively Designed Maclaren Strollers Highlights Problems With Recall System

As noted in our description of the AP's video news report on the mass recall of over 1 million defectively designed Maclaren strollers, the recall was apparently prompted by 12 reported incidents of children whose fingers were partially amputated when they became caught in the strollers' side hinges.

This begs two important questions:

(1) Why did it take so many incidents where children were quite seriously injured before the conclusion was reached that these products needed to be recalled ? (Unfortunately, this is NOT the first time we are asking this question); and,

(2) Given the severity of this safety defect, why didn't Maclaren's testing of these strollers reveal this problem before the products ever made it to the marketplace?

I think it is safe to assume that the answers to these questions will only be learned when Maclaren is sued for one of these children's injuries. And I have no doubt that those lawsuits are coming.

New York Jury Finds Product Manufacturer Not At Fault For Worker's Injuries

For those who have little or no faith in our jury system, take notice. Sometimes, juries get it absolutely right.

Recently, a New York jury concluded that a chemical manufacturer was not responsible (or "liable," in legalese) for an electrical worker's injuries that were sustained when he sprayed the defendant's degreaser while leaning against the top of a utility pole that he was attempting to repair, and then suffered a severe shock.

Although the plaintiff contended that the spray did not adequately warn him that the spray could conduct electricity, and threfore, that there was a risk of sustaining a shock, the defense pointed out that the plaintiff had stepped out of his protective rubber basket, and was not wearing appropriate protective gloves. In short, the jury found that the plaintiff was responsible for his own accident.

This story is yet another example of why there are so few successful defective products lawsuits.

 

An Unsung Provision For Consumer Product Safety That Has Some Promise

Earlier today, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission issued a press release reminding everyone in the chain of distribution of children's products, from manufacturers and distributors to resellers and retailers that many of the provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act become effective tomorrow.

Interestingly, one of the provisions of the Act that has received the least attention (most of the Act is focused on the lead level in children's toys) may have the most promise in terms of its likelihood to improve product safety: new labeling requirements.

Under the Act, manufacturers are now required (unless manifestly impractical) to put permanent tracking labels on any consumer product that is targeted for use by children aged 12 and younger. These tracking labels must identify the name of the manufacturer and its location, the date the product was manufactured, and must specify information from the manufacturing process itself, including the lot or batch number.

The immediate and practical benefits to this provision are twofold:

1. At the first hint that a product may be defectively designed, and a recall may be needed, it will be far easier to identify which specific products need to be recalled, and concurrently, to track where the recalled products were sold. As a natural consequence, it should make product recall efforts far simpler and more effective.
2. It will help claimants who have been injured by a defective product to identify with greater specificity the potentially responsible parties, and thereby reduce the litigation costs borne by parties with no real connection to the products at issue.
   

Top Ten Recalled Children's Products Announced by CPSC

Earlier today, in conjunction with the launch of its campaign to prevent re-sellers of consumer products from introducing into the stream of commerce various products that were the subject of safety recalls (an earlier study concluded that almost 75% of re-sellers failed to comply with the Federal law prohibiting the re-sale of recalled consumer products) the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission released its Top Ten List of Recalled Children's Products.

Interestingly, this announcement does not clarify why these particular products made the "Top Ten" list. While some may be inclined to think that this is a cheap marketing gimmick, or a vain attempt at humor (ala David Letterman), my reading of the description of incidents that led to the recall of these dangerous products convinces me that this is not the case. The distinguishing characteristic of these products? Unlike many other consumer safety recalls, the design defects in these particular products (mostly defective cribs) led to several wrongful deaths.

That said, I am still troubled by a few aspects of the CPSC's press release. One, if the stated goal of the Top Ten List is to garner and focus the public's attention on the unique dangers presented by these particular children's products, then they should say so. And rather than just issue a simple press release, they should broadcast this list all over the news, and post videos on the internet that demonstrate the manifest dangers of these products. Second, if the government went to the trouble of conducting a study roughly ten years ago which assessed whether re-sellers of consumer products were compliant with Federal law barring the re-sale of recalled products, why wasn't a companion study done to assess what measures could be implemented to improve compliance. Wouldn't that have been more important than the first study?

Product Recall With An Unusual Twist - A Complete Lack of Assembly Instructions

In the near-daily bombardment of announcements of defective product recalls, it is hard for any one recall to really stand out, especially if it does not involve an egregious safety hazard. But, every once in a while, a relatively minor product recall can distinguish itself, if only because the circumstances underlying the recall are unusual, or simply off the beaten path.

Yesterday, the CPSC announced one such recall. And it was noteworthy in two respects: first, this recall has absolutely nothing to do with the actual design of the product - it had to do with the product's instructions. Second, and in the same vein, it wasn't simply a question that the instructions were inadequate or unclear (just imagine if that were the standard that companies employed to issue recalls); rather, they simply forgot to include a critical set of instructions regarding the swing seat's harness.

Consequently, this product recall is distinct from the garden variety recall because it touches upon a failure to warn claim rather than a defective design claim. For more information on the distinctions between these two different types of defective products claims, please see "Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits."

De-Bunking Some Myths About Defective Products Lawsuits Under NY Law

In this article, Long Island, New York products liability lawyer and author of the guide to New York defective products cases, Jonathan Cooper, explains why some commonly held ideas about the viability and prevalence of products liability lawsuits are terribly mistaken. For additional information on this topic, please visit www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com or www.JonathanCooperLaw.com.

The 5 Ways To Prove Your Defective Products Claim Under New York Law

In this blog article, published author of Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits, and Long Island, New York products liability lawyer Jonathan Cooper explains the 5 essential causes of action, or claims, that are typically brought in lawsuits involving a dangerous product that caused personal injuries. For additional information, please visit www.JonathanCooperLaw.com

Burn & Fire Hazard Caused By Defective Design of Chinese-Manufactured Gas Grill Leads To Massive Product Recall

As reported in our news section, earlier this week, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, in a joint announcement with its sister organization, Health Canada, announced that nearly 90,000 gas grills were recalled after they had collectively received a whopping 161 reports of fires, burn injuries, and other assorted personal injuries, including loss of hearing, due to the defective design of these Chinese-made grills. And these complaints were all logged in less than 3 years.

Apparently, the fire hazard with this particular product, the Blue Ember Gas Grill, is that the gas tank's hose is set too close to the firebox.

In analyzing this news story, two questions immediately come to mind - and its not the first time we've raised these issues (see "CPSC's Recall of (Yet Another) Defective Crib Raises Questions About Recall System in General"):

1. Why did it take so many reports of grill fires before this latest round of the recall became effective?; and,
2. Why didn't the first round of recalls of this product in 2008 solve this problem?

The fact that these questions need to be asked is certainly troubling.

How Product Safety Recalls Can Help Prove A Defective Products Case in NY

Long Island, New York product safety recall and defective fan attorney Jonathan Cooper discusses how a government recall of a product can be helpful and effective in proving a product liability case under New York law. For additional information on this topic, as well as products liability cases in general, please order a copy of Jonathan Cooper's FREE guide to defective products cases, Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits, by going to www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com.

In New York, Sometimes The Best Case Is One That Isn't A Case

In this article, Long Island, New York product liability lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses why many, if not most, cases involving personal injuries that arise from the use of a household or commercial product are not viable product liability cases under New York law. For additional information on this topic, please download or order a FREE copy of Jonathan Cooper's book, Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits from www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com.

Children's Inflatable Boats Recalled Due to Safety Hazard

On July 2, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, in conjunction with Aqua-Leisure Industries, recalled over 4 million children's inflatable boats and rafts, after they received over 30 complaints that the straps which secure the children's legs had a tendency to rip, causing the children to fall into the water. Although, thankfully, no drowning incidents have been reported due to this problem, it bears repeating that in terms of New York law governing defective products (or "products liability"), this is a classic example of a design defect. For additional information on what factors determine what a plaintiff must prove to succeed on a defective products claim, you can download the free eBook, "Why There Are So Few Successful Defective Products Lawsuits."

Zicam Recall Highlights Difficulties in Pursuing Defective Products Claims in New York

In this article, New York consumer product recall and defective product lawyer Jonathan Cooper discusses why the mere fact that a product was recalled does NOT mean that the company issuing the recall concedes that the product was, or is, defective, or that their product was responsible for causing damage or harm to any particular consumer. For additional information on this important topic, and how it may affect your potential products liability case under New York law, please order or download a copy of Jonathan Cooper's FREE guide to New York products liability claims at www.ProductsLiabilityBook.com.