Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a spoliation claim in a product liability lawsuit arising out of a 2004 car accident. The trial court had ruled that the insurer for the defendant vehicle salvage company did not have to contribute to any settlement that might arise out the salvage company's inappropriate destruction of the relevant vehicle. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling and found that the salvage company's insurance policy did in fact cover any claims arising out of spoliation of evidence. As a result of the appellate court's decision, the defendant's insurance company will now have to pay any reasonable damages arising out of the spoliation claim. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., et al., No. 1-10-1723 (December 16, 2011).

The product liability lawsuit was based on a 2004 SUV rollover accident. Michael Widawski's Nissan Pathfinder SUV rolled over, ejecting Monika Gramacki, its only passenger, from the vehicle as it rolled over. Gramacki died and her family brought a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for an alleged defect in the Pathfinder's rear door.

The main piece of evidence in a product defect claim is the alleged damaged product, which in this case would Widawski's Nissan Pathfinder. It is not enough for a party to simply allege that a product is defective; it must also be examined by experts to determine the source of the defect and whether that defect caused harm to the party. However, in the present case, no experts were able to examine Widawski's vehicle because it was destroyed before they could do so.

Following the rollover accident, Widawski's insurer, Farmers Insurance, handled the preservation of the Pathfinder. Farmers hired LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., a vehicle salvage and storage firm, to store the damaged Nissan and keep it in its current condition. However, LKQ failed to follow these instructions and somehow ended up destroying the Nissan Pathfinder shortly after it arrived. And with its destruction went Gramacki's family's hope of a fair and successful product defect claim against Nissan.

In order to rectify this dilemma, Gramacki's father filed two lawsuits: the first was a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for the allegedly faulty door latch, the second was a spoliation of evidence claim against Farmers for the destroyed Pathfinder. In its claim against Farmers, Gramacki alleged that the "destruction of the subject Nissan Pathfinder deprived Plaintiff of the key piece of evidence necessary to prove an otherwise valid product liability/negligence lawsuit" against Nissan. Farmers then filed a third party lawsuit against LKQ for its role in destroying the Pathfinder.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Owed Duty to Defend Claim for Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Because the Vehicle Loss Was Tangible Property - Universal v. LKQ" »

Honda recently announced it will be recalling over 300,000 vehicles worldwide due to air bag problems. The Honda recall has been issued for some of its most popular models, including the Accord, Civic, Odyssey, Pilot, and CR-V.

The recall affects driver-side airbags. According to a statement by Honda, the faulty airbags have been shown to inflate with too much pressure during a crash, which in turn has caused injuries to drivers. To date, the car manufacturer has cited at least 20 accidents related to the over-inflated airbags, with at least two resulting in the driver's death.

The current recall represents an expansion of earlier airbag recalls in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, while the original recall was thought to be related to a problem with excessive moisture developing in the airbag's inflator propellant, the current recall is thought to be caused by a defective stamping machine. Whether this recall is the result of a design error or a product defect remains to be seen.

Continue reading "Honda Air Bag Problem Leads to Recall of 304,000 Vehicles Worldwide" »

Back in November Volkswagen began notifying its customers that it would be voluntarily recalling numerous of its diesel models for faulty fuel injectors. The car manufacturer estimates that this recall could affect more than 168,000 vehicles. While Volkswagen's website has more information on the specific models the Volkswagen recall effects, they include:
• Volkswagen Golf models manufactured between 2010 and 2011,
• Volkswagen Jetta models manufactured between 2009 and 2012, and
• some Audi 3 models manufactured between 2010 and 2012.

Of the above models, only those vehicles containing the 2.0L TDI® Clean Diesel engine are included in the recall. According to Volkswagen, there is a possibility that certain vibrations will cause a fuel line crack in the engine, which could then cause a fuel leak. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) warns that fuel leaks could lead to car fires, Volkswagen stated that it is not aware of any accidents or injuries caused by fuel line cracks in its diesel engines.

Continue reading "168,000 Volkswagen and Audi Diesel Vehicles Recalled for Fuel Leaks" »

A Chicago jury entered a $3 million jury verdict against a forklift manufacturer in an Illinois product liability lawsuit. The Chicago lawsuit arose out of a work injury involving 35 year-old Keith Price and a forklift designed and manufactured by Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. As a result of the Chicago work injury, Price was left with an amputated right leg and was unable to work for over five years. Keith Price v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc., Voss Equipment, Inc., 06 L 12915.

The work injury occurred in February 2005 at a Chicago plant of ICI Uniqema, where Price was employed as a forklift operator. On the date of the work injury, Price was using a forklift to load a bag of spent nickel into a nearby hopper. However, as Price attempted to the bag into the hopper, it became caught on another bag. Price then needed to use a chain to readjust the position of the spent nickel bag. These chains were still attached when Price lifted the forks above the bag, at which point the forklift tipped over onto its side.

While Price was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the forklift accident, the seat itself was not properly attached to the forklift. As a result, the seat Price was sitting on rolled forward as the forklift moved. Price's legs did not remain inside the vehicle and were crushed underneath the forklift. The weight of the large machine caused severe crushing injuries to his right leg, necessitating a below the knee amputation. In addition, Price sustained facial fractures to his jaw and lost four of his teeth.

Continue reading "$3 Million Verdict for Leg Amputation in Forklift Mishap - Price v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc." »

In law, if you don't agree with a lower court's ruling, you have the option of appealing your case to a higher court. However, just because you file an appeal does not mean you will be happy with the outcome. In the product liability lawsuit of David Show, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Nos. 10-2428 and 10-2637, the trial court had entered a summary judgment that effectively dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which in turn declined to review the product liability lawsuit.

The lawsuit sprung from an Illinois rollover accident in which the two plaintiffs, David Show and Maria Federici, were injured. At the time of the auto accident, the two plaintiffs were riding in a 1993 Ford Explorer, which rolled over after being struck by another vehicle. The plaintiffs both suffered personal injuries as a result of the rollover accident and subsequently brought an Illinois product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for its supposed negligence in designing its Ford Explorer.

The basis of the plaintiffs' claim was that Ford had chosen to defectively design and produce their Explorer, making it an unsafe vehicle for consumers. In order to show that the SUV was unsafe, the plaintiffs offered up the fact that it had rolled over in their accident and was therefore unsafe. They testified that as consumers they would have expected the car to not rollover in an accident.

Continue reading "Federal Court of Appeals Rules That Expert Needed in SUV Rollover Case - Show v. Ford Motor Co." »

An Illinois Supreme Court ruling in a product liability lawsuit confirms that manufacturers are not required to guard against every risk to the consumer. The verdict in Dora Mae Jablonski v. Ford Motor Company, No. 110096, reversed a $43 million judgment in a 5-0 vote.

Jablonski was filed as a result of a rear-end car accident involving Dora Mae and John Jablonski. The couple was traveling in their 1993 Lincoln Town Car when they were struck by a Chevrolet Lumina that was traveling at 60 mph. The impact of the collision was such that it propelled a pipe wrench laying in the truck of the Jablonski's vehicle through the trunk walls and into the nearby fuel tank. The punctured fuel tank caused the car to catch fire, leaving John Jablonski dead and Dora Mae severely burned.

Dora Mae and her son brought a product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, alleging that it had negligently designed a defective and dangerous fuel tank system in its Lincoln Town Car. According to the plaintiffs' theory of liability, the design of the Town Car's rear fuel tank system left it susceptible to puncture or being damaged during a rear-end collision.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Rules No Negligent Auto Design, Reversing $43 Million Verdict in Jablonski v. Ford Motor" »

A Central Illinois product liability lawsuit springing from a construction site injury returned the highest verdict in Tazewell County history. The Illinois jury awarded $13.5 million to the twenty-some year-old plaintiff who suffered a traumatic leg amputation; Justin Stone v. MiTek Industries and Central Illinois Truss, Inc., 10th Judicial Circuit, Tazewell County, Illinois (2011).

At the time of his work injury, 19 year-old Dustin Stone was working on a machine building roof trusses, or roof rafters, which are the triangle supports used to build roofs in homes. The roof truss machine consisted of several different work tables spread out over the length of the 100 ft. long machine. Stone was adding support to the wood trusses by hammering metal plates into the various truss joints.

Stone was standing between two opposite-facing machine tables when another truss operator drove a crane gantry toward the area where Stone was working. Protocol requires the gantry operator to first make sure the aisles are clear of workers; however, this was obviously not done on the date of Stone's construction site injury. The gantry pinned Stone against a metal rail, crushing his left femur so severely that he required an above the knee amputation of his left leg.

Continue reading "Illinois Construction Worker Receives $13.5 Million Verdict for Machine's Design Defect - Stone v. MiTek Industries" »

Legal venue is an important issue in many personal injury lawsuits, especially when the different states have different laws. In the product liability lawsuit of Joseph Murphy v. Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., No. 1-10-2178 (March 31, 2011), the Illinois Appellate Court sought to answer the question of whether Michigan law or Illinois law governed the case regarding issues of liability and damages.

The car accident at issue in Murphy occurred in Michigan. However, the plaintiff driver and the defendant car dealership where the plaintiff bought his car both were located in Illinois. The court then had to decide where the personal injury lawsuit should be heard - in Michigan, where the accident occurred, or in Illinois, where the plaintiff driver lived and worked.

Where the lawsuit was filed, or "choice-of-law," would be critical to the eventual outcome of Murphy because of the major differences in Michigan and Illinois law. When deciding product liability issues, Illinois law applies a strict liability rule, whereas Michigan law applies a pure negligence standard. This means that Illinois defendants cannot effectively argue that they were unaware of the risk of the design defect, whereas this could be a successful defense in Michigan where the standard of care is set by similar manufacturers. In addition, Michigan imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in any product liability lawsuits, whereas Illinois has no such cap on damages.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Holds Illinois Law Applies to Michigan Car Crash - Murphy v. Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth" »

When people think of frivolous lawsuits, most instantly think of the burn injury lawsuit brought by Stella Liebeck against McDonald's. However, "Hot Coffee," an HBO documentary, asks viewers to rethink their perceptions of the McDonald's lawsuit and exposes several other misconceptions about additional types of legal matters.

The HBO documentary is named for the personal injury lawsuit resulting from the third degree burns the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, sustained after spilling a cup of McDonald's coffee on her lap. However, what is controversial about the film is that rather than framing Liebeck as an example of an overzealous American suing a company for insignificant injuries, "Hot Coffee" frames Liebeck as a case of the little guy versus the big, bad company.

For example, the documentary includes the little mentioned fact that the plaintiff did not rush to sue McDonald's Corporation. Rather, she first asked them to pay her out-of-pocket medical expenses she accrued as a result of her severe burns, an injury one would typically not expect simply from spilling coffee. It was only after McDonald's refused any liability and denied her request for reimbursement of medical expenses that Liebeck hired a lawyer.

Continue reading "HBO Documentary Shows Different Perspective on Personal Injury Cases and Medical Malpractice Lawsuits" »

Jeep Grand Cherokees might face a recall due to a product defect that causes the increased risk for fuel fires following rear-end collisions. The auto recall would affect 1993 to 2004 Grand Cherokee models; however, Chrysler denies the need for a Jeep recall and the National HIghway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not yet instituted one. Yet there are at least different three crash tests showing that Grand Cherokees are more likely to catch on fire following rear end collisions that similar SUVs manufactured during the same time period.

The various crash tests were conducted by Karco Engineering and The Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory; Karco has previously performed crash testing for the NHTSA. One test conducted on 1995, 1996, and 1999 Grand Cherokees resulted in significant gasoline leaks following rear-impact crashes. These gasoline leaks not only put the Jeep passengers at risk, but could also pose a fire threat to the occupants of the striking vehicle.

Likewise, another investigation of Grand Cherokeesfrom 1993-2004 was conducted because of over 254 deaths resulting from "172 fatal fire crashes" involving those Grand Cherokees models. The majority of these investigations are focusing on the Grand Cherokee because of similar results showing that the Grand Cherokee's fuel system is much more likely to pose a fire threat than those used in similar vehicles. For example, comparable Ford Explorer models were much less likely to catch fire following a rear-end collision; in crash tests, Ford Explorers' fuel system typically remained intact following these collisions.

Continue reading " Jeep Grand Cherokees Recall? Crash Tests Show Fire Risk Following Rear-End Collisions" »

The first case to go to trial in the series of Cook County pharmaceutical negligence lawsuits against Baxter International received a $625,000 verdict against the pharmaceutical manufacturer. The Illinois lawsuit of Estate of Johansen v. Baxter International, Inc., et al., 09 L 11175, was filed after the plaintiff, Steven Johansen, died as a result of receiving contaminated Heparin distributed by the defense.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against Deerfield-based Baxter International, Inc. and Scientific Protein Laboratories, its supplier, after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered that the companies had been selling contaminated Heparin. The tainted Heparin was discovered to contain oversulfated chondroitin sulfate, which is a synthetic chemical created from animal cartilage that is typically distributed as a dietary supplement. According to tests run by the FDA, the false chemical mimics the real drug, Heparin.

However, not only does the oversulfated chondroitin sulfate not have the same blood thinning effects of Heparin, but can actually cause adverse reactions in patients taking it. The synthetic chemical has been found to cause vomiting, difficulty breathing, a drop in blood pressure, and other severe reactions. The plaintiff, Steven Johansen, first received low doses of the contaminated Heparin during dialysis treatment in December 2007, with no obvious reaction. However, Johansen later received a second, much higher dose of the contaminated Heparin, which resulted in his death five days later.

Continue reading "Contaminated Heparin Lawsuit Awarded $625,000 By Cook County Jury - Johansen v. Baxter International" »

This past Tuesday the Toyota Motor Company made an announcement that it would be recalling over 50,000 of its Tundra pick-up trucks. The voluntary recall came after the auto manufacturer discovered that this model's driveshaft slip yokes were not properly casted and assembled.

The driveshaft slip yoke is cast out of molten metal, meaning that a mold is first made which the melted metal is then poured into. However, because of flaws in the casting process, the casted yokes have been found to have a tendency to crack or break under normal wear and tear. This product defect could either be the result of a design defect or a flaw in the manufacturing process.

This product defect could be dangerous to truck drivers because the driveshaft slip yoke is responsible for connecting the truck's driveshaft to its transmission. Therefore, if the yoke were to fail, then the engine's power would not be transferred to its wheels and the driver could lose control of the truck. For example, if the front driveshaft of a Toyota Tundra were to break, then the truck could be in danger of turning over.

Continue reading "Toyota Voluntarily Recalls 2011 Tundra Pick-Up Trucks Due to Defective Driveshafts" »

Crib bumper pads have been the topic of debate for several years. While some claim that they are perfectly safe and harmless, others claim that crib bumper pads put infants at risk for suffocating in their cribs. A recent report that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has not taken adequate steps to investigate crib bumper pads calls into question the product's safety.

Over the years, the CPSC has investigated allegations of babies' dying as a result of suffocating in their crib bumpers. However, it now seems that at least 17 of those cases were not fully investigated by the CPSC. While the agency did look into the infant deaths, it determined that in at least 12 of the 17 cases it was difficult to clearly implicate the crib bumper pads in the infants' deaths. The CPSC instead suggested that the deaths were caused not by the defective bumper pad design, but instead were the result of infants suffocating from pillows or blankets that were also in the cribs.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has taken a much firmer stance than the CPSC, going so far as to urge parents not to use crib bumper pads because of the risk of suffocation. These claims have been supported in autopsy reports conducted by medical examiners and coroners, who have affirmed that bumper pads were involved in the infant suffocations. In light of all this evidence, the CPSC must now decide whether it is safe for parents to continue using this crib product.

Continue reading "Infant Deaths Caused by Crib Bumpers - Safety Agency Needs Stricter Investigation Standards" »

An Illinois court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment in Brandon Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, 2011 WL 211008 (N.D. Ill.). The court disagreed with the defendant manufacturer that the Illinois product defect claim did not satisfy the requirements for strict liability or negligence claims and allowed the product defect case to continue.

Stollings involved claims that the Ryobi Technologies manufactured a table saw that was unreasonably dangerous due to several design defects. The Illinois product liability lawsuit was filed after the plaintiff, Brandon Stollings, lost two fingers while he was maneuvering the table saw. Stollings was cutting a piece of wood when it was kicked back at him by the blade, causing his fingers to push forward into the rotating blade. Stollings's product liability lawsuit claimed that Ryobi Technologies's table saw was unreasonable dangerous because its anti-kickback device was attached to the saw's blade guard instead of being an independent system, it lacked flesh-detection technology, and sawdust tended to accumulate in the blade guards and obstruct the view of the operators.

However, the defense filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss both Stollings's strict product liability counts and his negligence counts, citing evidence that Stollings had removed the blade guard prior to operating the table saw and that the plaintiff admitted to never reading the safety manual. The defense argued that if the plaintiff failed to utilize the safety features it had included then he was over 50% liable for his own injuries.

Continue reading "Product Defect Case Not Barred by Assumption of Risk Issue - Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies" »

A recent Illinois personal injury lawsuit involving the injury of a seven year-old girl at a local playground brought up issues of tort immunity in Illinois. Tort immunity laws are meant to determine to what degree a municipality, in this case the park district responsible for maintaining the playground, is immune from its actions. In Steven Tagliere, etc. v. Western Springs Park District, No. 1-09-2633, the plaintiff alleged that the Western Springs Park District was negligent in its maintenance of a seesaw at its park.

Seven year-old Taiylor Tagliere was playing on a seesaw at a park owned by the Western Springs Park District with five other girls when her ankle became lodged in the middle section of the seesaw, resulting in a broken ankle. Steven Tagliere, Taiylo'rs father, testified that when he later went to inspect the seesaw it was missing several bolts, which was evidence that the seesaw contained an "obvious defect." Under Illinois tort immunity laws, the alleged defect needs to be obvious in order to satisfy one of the requirements for the municipality's liability.

However, the other factor that the plaintiff must prove is that the failure to maintain the seesaw constituted "willful and wanton misconduct" on behalf of the park district. It was the plaintiff's failure to prove this that led to the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, despite the presence of an obvious defect. The plaintiff appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, stating that the lower court had erred in dismissing the case and asking the court to reconsider the evidence.

Continue reading "Illinois Park District’s Poor Inspections Do Not Satisfy Willful and Wanton Conduct Requirement Under Illinois Tort Immunity Act - Tagliere v. Western Springs Park District" »

A federal jury in New York has returned a verdict in favor of Toyota in one of the first lawsuits brought to trial since the 2008 Toyota recalls. The product defect case of Amir Sitafalwalla v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2008 cv 03001 (E.D. N.Y.) was tried in Central Islip, Long Island, New York.

In this product defect lawsuit, the plaintiff, Amir Sitafalwalla, filed his lawsuit after a 2008 car accident involving his 2005 Toyota Scion. Sitafalwalla, a doctor from Long Island, crashed his vehicle into a tree after it experienced a sudden acceleration. Plaintiff's attorneys maintained that the single vehicle car accident was caused either by product defects in either the vehicle's electronic throttle system or its floor mats, a claim that was backed up by plaintiff's engineering experts.

In response, Toyota's attorneys claimed that the accident was a result of the driver's negligence, not its floor mats or electronic system. The jury apparently agreed with the defendants, returning a not guilty verdict in its favor after just an hour of deliberation.

Continue reading "Jury Sides With Toyota in Product Defect Case - Sitafalwalla v. Toyota Motor Corporation" »

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court's ruling regarding the plaintiff's request to amend its complaint. In Linda Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc., et al., 10-2193, the plaintiff sought to add an additional theory of liability onto her original complaint. While this is not typically against judicial procedures, the plaintiff attempted to amend her complaint at the onset of her product defect trial. The court denied her request because doing so would have changed the plaintiff's theory of liability, which would have drastically affected the way the product liability case was tried.

The plaintiff's original product defect claims arose out of an incident with her Forest River recreational vehicle (RV). As the plaintiff, Linda Aldridge, was exiting her RV, the steps unexpectedly retracted back into the vehicle, causing Aldridge to fall and injure her shoulder. In her original complaint, Aldridge alleged that her injury was a result of Forest River's defective step controller.

The Illinois product liability complaint alleged that the step controller's unexpected retraction was the cause of Aldridge's fall. Counts I and III were based on strict liability, stating that the RV step controller was not reasonably safe for its intended use, which was to raise and lower the RV's steps. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that Forest River had failed to properly wire, install, and test the step controller.

Continue reading "Illinois Court Denies Plaintiff's Request to Change Theory of Liability in Product Defect Lawsuit - Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc." »

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a ruling by a Cook County associate judge who denied a forum non conveniens challenge brought by Motorola in Joseph Erwin, Jr., et al. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1-09-2847. The Illinois birth injury lawsuit involved allegations that the plaintiffs' children suffered birth defects as a result of their parents' exposure to hazardous chemicals in the course of their employment in Motorola’s semiconductor industry “clean rooms”.

Motorola's motion involved a request of a change of venue, citing forum non conveniens rules to support its motion in the birth defect lawsuit. Forum non conveniens is Latin for "inconvenient forum" and are applicable when a lawsuit is filed in a location that is inconvenient for parties or witnesses. Under this principle, a judge is allowed to change a case's venue if a party can make a substantial case for its inconvenience.

Erwin was filed in a Circuit Court of Cook County court on the basis that Motorola's headquarters are in Schaumburg, Illinois. However, Motorola argued that a more appropriate venue was Travis County, Texas, on the basis that much of the plaintiffs' exposure to the hazardous chemicals took place in that county. It submitted a motion to dismiss the birth injury lawsuit on the basis of forum non conveniens, which the circuit court judge denied. Motorola then appealed this decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.

Continue reading "Forum Non Conveniens Motion Denied in Illinois Birth Defect Case - Erwin v. Motorola, Inc." »

In August 2010, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) posted a letter it sent to a medical device manufacturer regarding the safety of its metal hip implants. The letter informed the medical device manufacturer that the FDA had become aware that it had not obtained marketing approval before releasing its metal-on-metal hip implant device for sale and that the company should stop marketing this device immediately.

The medical device manufacturer, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., had not received FDA approval for its TruMatch™ Personalized Solutions System prior to releasing it for sale. Therefore, the FDA was warning the medical device manufacturer that it needed to cease production of this product while it went through the proper channels of obtaining the FDA's approval.

In addition, while DePuy had been cleared by the FDA to market its Corail® Hip System, which was intended to be used for a total hip arthroplasty. However, DePuy had made several changes to its Corail Hip System that were not approved or tested by the FDA and therefore could not legally be marketed or used.

Continue reading "Overview of Illinois DePuy ASR Hip Replacement System Recall and Lawsuits" »

An Illinois product defect lawsuit recently received a $2 million jury verdict award for her severely injured right hand in Rita Thakore v. Universal Machine Co. of Pottstown, Inc. d/b/a Universal Machine & Engineering Corp., 05 C-5262. The Illinois product liability lawsuit involved allegations of a defective design of an automated packing line machine manufactured by the defendant, Universal Machine Co. of Pottstown, Inc.

The Illinois product liability lawsuit sprung from a work place injury that the plaintiff, Rita Thakore, experienced while employed as a production technician at Ciba Vision’s contact lens factory in Des Plaines, Illinois. The 47 year-old technician was wiping melted plastic residue off of the upper plate of the heat seal press of the packing line machine. Ms. Thakore was responsible for handling the heat seal press, which was designed to seal foil lids onto plastic containers.

The machine was stopped at the time, but the 200 lb. plate suddenly dropped from the machine and landed on top of her right hand. Her hand became trapped under the 450 degrees Fahrenheit plate for several minutes, until the high temperatures burned through her heat-resistant glove.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Defect Case Returns $2 Million Verdict for Factory Worker - Thakore v. Universal Machine Co. of Pottstown, Inc." »

An Illinois woman claimed that the Illinois auto accident she was involved in was the result of a product defect. The Illinois product liability lawsuit alleged that a defective bike rack on another motorist's vehicle caused the plaintiff's car and truck accident. Prior to trial, the bike manufacturer settled with the plaintiff for $1.5 Million in Starr Frohlich v. Yakima Products, Inc., et al., 09L-103.

In 2007, the plaintiff, Starr Frohlich, was driving southbound on Interstate-94 near Libertyville, Illinois. Motorist William Gordon was traveling slightly ahead of Ms. Frohlich and had his bicycle hitched to his vehicle by way of a bike rack manufactured by Yakima Products, Inc. Without any warning, the bicycle came loose from the bike rack and flew into the path of Ms. Frohlich.

In order to avoid colliding with the bouncing bicycle, Ms. Frohlich abruptly moved her car to the road's left shoulder. Once the danger had passed, Ms. Frohlich moved her car back onto the highway and into the center lane. However, at that point she was struck from behind by a truck. So by avoiding a collision with the unmanned bicycle, Ms. Frohlich instead became involved in an Illinois auto accident.

Continue reading "Illinois Auto and Truck Accident Caused By Bike Rack Defect Settled for $1.5 Million - Starr Frohlich v. Yakima Products" »

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has reversed a federal judge's dismissal of a Illinois product defect case. Donald Malen slipped while getting off his reconditioned riding lawn mower injuring his foot by the rotating blades of the mower. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging that the manufacturer, MTD Products, Inc. and the seller of the product, Home Depot USA, Inc. were responsible for the injury. The case,
Malen v, MTD Products, Inc. and Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 08-3855 (Nov. 19, 2010)., was originally filed the Circuit Court of Cook County, but was removed to federal court because of diversity of citizenship of the parties.

Before the plaintiff's injury, he had been using riding mowers for more than 40 years. In 2001 Mr. Malen purchased a Yard-Man riding mower at Home Depot that was manufactured by MTD in 1998. The mower was advertised as a reconditioned model, with a full manufacturer's warranty.

The mower was designed with a safety interlock system. One component of the safety system was the "operator presence control", which would shut off the engine if the operator rose from the seat without first disengaging the cutting blade and setting the parking brake.
The mower also came equipped with a device that cut off the blades movement if the mower were put in reverse gear.

Plaintiff acknowledged that before the incident he had read and understood the admonishments found in the instruction manual and that over three years he had operated the mower 30-50 times without a problem. But in 2004, while Malen was mulching leaves with the mower, the right front tire became wedged over a curb. As he rose from the seat and stepped off the mower, his left foot slipped under the cutting deck where it was struck by the cutting blade.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Defect Case Reversed For Injured; Malen v. MTD Products, Inc." »

In a closely watched case involving federal preemption of product defect claims that a minivan was defective because its aisle seat lacked a lap/shoulder seat-belt, Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is angling its way to the Supreme Court. Williamson seeks to hold Mazda responsible for the death of Thanh Williamson, who was killed in a head-on collision in her family car, a 1993 Mazda minivan.

The Mazda minivan that Williamson was riding was equipped with lap/shoulder harness seat-belts except for the rear aisle seat where she was seated at the time of the crash. All of the other passengers in the van survived the incident. They were all harness seat-belted.

The United States has filed an amicus brief in support of the Williamson family, arguing that the lower courts have misread a similar Supreme Court case decided in 2000, Geier v. American Honda Motor Co, and that the family should be allowed to pursue their product liability case to its end.

Continue reading "Federal Preemption Auto Safety Case To US Supreme Court; Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc." »

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a warning to users of 15-passenger vans to take specific safety steps in keeping its occupants safe. There had been two recently reported fatal truck crashes, one in New York and one in Georgia involving 15-passenger vans that have rolled over and resulted in ten deaths.

NHTSA has warned that tire maintenance is essential in preventing rollover crashes. Users of 15-passenger vans are cautioned to make sure that the vehicles have appropriately-sized tires that are inflated to the correct level before each trip. NHTSA has also recommended that spare tires not be used as replacements for worn tires. Fifteen-passenger vans have a history of tire wear that necessitates rotation of tires and/or replacement on a regular basis. Many tire manufacturers recommend that tires older than ten years old not be used at all.

Many of these vans are used for church groups, non-profit organizations, colleges and public schools.

Continue reading "15-Passenger Van Warning Issued By National Highway Traffic Safety Administration" »

An Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on spoliation issues in an Illinois product liability lawsuit. A spoliation claim can be brought if an entity, in this case Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, destroys or loses evidence that would be an important component of a potential lawsuit. Generally the court preserves an entity's duty to preserve evidence; however, the trial court in Esther Brobbey, et al. v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, No. 1-08-3474, dismissed a spoliation claim against the car rental company.

When renting a 2003 Chevrolet Astro van from Enterprise, John Brobbey noted that the vehicle jerked and wobbled upon application of the brakes. He advised the agent of his findings before driving off with the vehicle and was told that the brakes were fine. However, two days later the brakes failed while Brobbey's wife was driving the van, causing her to lose control. The vehicle rolled over several times and ended up landing in a ditch.

A little over a year after the Illinois auto accident, General Motors had issued a recall of its 2003 Chevrolet Astro vans regarding a suspension defect that could result in loss of control of the vehicle. Typically in an Illinois product liability case when a product defect is the potential cause of a party's injuries the plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the specific product in question is defective. This is typically done by performing a thorough inspection of the product, which in this instance would be the Astro van. However, by the time the plaintiffs were aware of the recall the Astro van they were driving had already been destroyed, thus giving rise to the spoliation claim against Enterprise.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Defect Lawsuit Springs From Rollover Accident - Appellate Court Rules on Spoliation Issues in Brobbey, et al. v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago" »

A recent Illinois wrongful death case combined both medical malpractice counts and product defect counts. Susan Calles, et al. v. Scipto-Tokai Corp., et al., No. 07 L 4577, was initially dismissed on summary judgment, but was then returned to the trial court by the Illinois Appellate Court. The case has now concluded after reaching a settlement of $3.5 million; $1.5 million for the medical malpractice and $2 million for the product defect.

Calles involves the death of Jillian Calles, a three year-old girl who suffered smoke inhalation as a result of a fire her twin sister caused. The twin was playing with a butane lighter when she accidentally started the fire. The Illinois product defect claim alleged that the lighter design improperly lacked a child-resistant device.

Under product defect liability, a manufacturer may be held liable for a design flaw in its product if that flaw presents a danger to consumers that could have been eliminated. In addition, the danger must be a byproduct of the product's intended use. For example, if someone becomes injured while balancing a chair on two of its four legs then this would not be the result of a design flaw given that the product was not meant to be used that way.

However, this caveat does not apply in Calles where the twin sister was obviously using the lighter correctly given that she was able to light it. Rather, the estate claims that the design should have prevented the three year-old from being able to use the lighter, period. The specific type of lighter was an Aim N Flame utility lighter manufactured by Scripto-Tokai.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Defect Liability and Medical Malpractice Combo Case Settles for $3.5 Million - Susan Calles, et al. v. Scipto-Tokai Corp., et al." »

A recent Illinois Appellate court decision on a product liability claim reviewed the elements needed to prove strict liability in an Illinois product liability claim. In Charles Salerno v. Innovative Surveillance Technology, Inc., No. 1-09-1402, the plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision, but for different reasons.

The basis of the product liability claims in Salerno are centered around an injury the plaintiff sustained while working in a surveillance cargo van manufactured by the defendant. The van contained a video periscope system. The plaintiff's injury occurred when he tried to stand inside the cargo van and struck his head on the metal periscope. According to the plaintiff's product liability complaint, his severe head trauma and resulting seizures could have been avoided if the defendant's product had not been unreasonably dangerous and defective.

The trial court granted the defendant manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the risk of being harmed by the periscope was open and obvious and that the defendant had no duty to protect the plaintiff from any resulting injuries.

Upon review, the Appellate Court was critical of the trial court's reason for dismissing the Illinois product defect lawsuit. In a prior decision the Illinois Supreme Court decided that a product's open and obvious risk of harm does not constitute an absolute defense in a strict liability count. While this defense may be considered as part of the risk-utility analysis it can not constitute the only factor.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Liability Rules to Evaluate Product Dangerousness Given By Appellate Court" »

A Cook County personal injury lawsuit involving an Illinois auto accident that left a 19 year-old girl a quadriplegic recently received a $6.05 million settlement. The bulk of the settlement in Perez v. Baeza, et al., No. 09 L 3958 came from Sparco, a distributor of race car seats that was involved in the case under product liability claims. Sparco contributed $6 million, which was the full extent of its insurance policy.

The events leading to the case began in 2005 when Perez's boyfriend, Baeza, was driving them home from a quinceañera, i.e. a coming of age celebration for a 15 year-old girl. Baeza had been drinking and was speeding along when his car left the roadway and struck a tree. He was later charged with an aggravated DUI.

At the time of the Illinois car crash Perez was a passenger in the front seat. Baeza had modified the front seats of his car, replacing the factory-installed seats with race car seats distributed by the California-based Sparco Motor Sports, Inc. Perez was left a quadriplegic as a result of the auto accident.

Continue reading "Cook County Car Crash Leaves Teenage Girl a Quadriplegic: Settlement Reached" »

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a recall on over 2 million drop-side cribs. Drop-side cribs are baby cribs whose sides raise and lower in order to make it easier for parents to lift their baby out of the crib. However, numerous reports injury or deaths resulting from repeated malfunctions of these movable sides has led to the widespread recall of drop-side cribs.

According to reports, these cribs' product defect seems to result from a product design defect that allows the baby to slip into the gap that opens up when the movable sides separate from the crib. There have been reports of over 30 babies in the U.S. alone who have died as a result of the malfunctioning cribs and over 250 consumer reports of defective sides during the span of 2000 to 2009. The inherent dangers in these types of cribs has prompted a spokesperson from Kids in Danger, a Chicago-based advocacy group, to warn parents not to use a drop-sided crib.

A 2007 expose by the Chicago Tribune can be credited with first exposing the dangers that can result from the crib's product defect. To date there have been approximately 9 million cribs recalled. For more information on the specific cribs included in the recall, visit the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's website.

Continue reading "Drop-Side Crib Recalls By Federal Regulators Due to Death and Injury" »

The Illinois Supreme Court will hear an Illinois product defect case to determine whether to affirm or remand a $43 million jury verdict against Ford Motor Co. in Jablonski et al., etc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 11096. The Illinois product liability lawsuit included claims that the auto manufacturer negligently installed a rear axle fuel tank, which caused injuries to the plaintiffs following a high-speed, rear-collision auto accident.

The Illinois Appellate Court has already affirmed the lower court's ruling, but Ford Motor Co. brings its arguments before the Illinois Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse the trial court's rulings and resulting product defect jury verdict. Jablonski was filed after the plaintiffs were involved in a rear-end auto accident where their 1993 Lincoln Town Car was struck by a Chevrolet Lumina at 60 mph. The force of the collision propelled a pipe wrench laying in plaintiffs' trunk through the trunk's walls and into the fuel tank, which resulted in a fire that left the husband dead and the wife severely burned.

The 1993 Lincoln Town car was one of the four vehicles, including one designed for police, that was built with a fuel tank behind the rear axle. Plaintiffs allege that Ford was not only negligent in locating the fuel tank in that position, but it also failed to guard against and warn of the dangers of locating the fuel tank behind the rear axle.

Rather than filing a strict liability lawsuit, the plaintiffs' brought a negligent design claim against the car manufacturer. While strict liability and negligence claims both require the plaintiff to prove that there was a design defect, the negligence claim also requires that the manufacturer knowingly failed to exercise reasonable care. Because there is an additional burden of proof under manufacturer negligence claims most product liability lawsuits include strict liability, not negligence claims.

Continue reading "Auto Defect Case to be Reviewed by Illinios Supreme Court" »

The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a General Motors recall regarding a variety of its vehicles due to a product defect. The affected 2006 to 2009 vehicles are equipped with heated washer fluid systems. The units are being recalled because of the potential risk of fires.

According to the notice the dealers servicing the defective vehicles would permanently disable and remove the heated washer fluid module. This is the second recall involving the heated washer fluid module. A 2008 recall attempted to insert a fuse to the unit in order to correct problems with electrical shorts. However, this modification might in fact be the cause of the potential fire hazard. GM has elected to completely remove the module instead of attempting any further modifications.

The safety recall is expected to start on June 14, 2010. Owners of the affected vehicles (listed here) may contact Buick at 1-866-608-8080, Cadillac at 1-866-982-2339, Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438, Saturn at 1-800-972-8876, GMAC at 1-866-996-9463 and Hummer at 1-800-732-5493. Others may go to the General Motors owner center.

Further details of the NHTSA recall should go to the NHTSA website or visit www.safercar.gov.

Continue reading "General Motors Recalls SUVs with Heated Windshield Washer Fluid Systems" »

The first Avandia case set for trial against drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) settled for an undisclosed amount. The pharmaceutical litigation case was brought against GSK after new studies of Avandia revealed that using the drug could increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

No details of the settlement or the terms were announced except a statement indicating that the details of the settlement were to remain confidential. And while GSK would not indicate how many plaintiffs were involved in the recent settlement, according to reports by Deutsche Bank, as many as 5,000 claims for damages were reportedly consolidated in this Philadelphia case.

If the alleged number of settled claims is correct, then this could mean that GSK has settled almost half of the pending Avandia claims. Analysts have been evaluating the progress of GSK's Avandia lawsuits and had originally estimated there to be around 13,000 claims against GSK that would take around $6 billion in total to settle. While GSK has yet to confirm the actual numbers in any of the Avandia cases, according to a recent Reuters's article by Ben Hirschler, the recent developments indicate that GSK's final payout would be considerably less. New estimates indicated that the final payout might be close to $1.1 billion instead of the $6.6 billion originally anticipated.

It will be interesting to see whether GSK plans to settle the next set of claims, which is scheduled for an October 2010 trial in Philadelphia. To date it has not settled any of its multi-district litigation claims that are pending in federal court.

Continue reading "GlaxoSmithKline Avandia Case Settles: First of Many Cases Set For Trial" »

Yesterday the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform launched a Congressional hearing regarding "Johnson & Johnson's Recall of Children's Tylenol and Other Pediatric Medicines" in order to further investigate McNeil Consumer Healthcare/Johnson & Johnson's recall of numerous children's medicines.

Since its April 10, 2010 voluntary recall, Johnson & Johnson has recalled around 136 million bottles of more than 40 different types of popular medicines. A complete list of all the recalled children's Tylenol products can be found at the company's website. The list of drugs recalled by McNeil include Infants’ Tylenol, Children’s Tylenol, and Children’s Benadryl, and Children’s Motrin.

The massive recall of children's Tylenol products was the result of manufacturing defects and poor quality control at McNeil's manufacturing plants that caused the medications to contain either too much of the active ingredients, inactive ingredients that failed to meet testing standards, or metal specks within the medications.

The House committee's investigation was set into motion by Chairman Towns and Darrell Issa (R-CA) earlier this month due to the large number of medicines included in the Tylenol recall. McNeil Consumer Healthcare could face a number of repercussions from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including seizures of its current products, criminal penalties, and/or additional sanctions.

Continue reading "Recall of Children's Tylenol Subject of Congressional Hearing Entitled "Johnson & Johnson's Recall of Children's Tylenol and Other Pediatric Medicines"" »

Yet another weight loss drug has been accused of posing a safety risk due to its potential causing of liver damage or failure. Yesterday the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed its safety review of the the weight loss drug Orlistat, which has been marketed under the names of Alli and Xenical, in connection with reports of severe liver injury. Alli is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), while Xenical is manufactured by Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche).

These reports of potential liver damage due to a weight loss drug come on the heels of similar reports of liver injury associated with Hydroxycut, which led to a massive recall of the weight loss supplement.

After undergoing an investigation into the safety of Xenical and Alli, the FDA found that Alli and Xenical could in fact cause liver damage in rare cases and therefore has approved the weight loss drugs to stay on the market as long as their labels are changed to include warnings of potential liver damage.

Continue reading "Alli and Xenical (Orlistat) Could Cause Severe Liver Injury: FDA Warns of Dangers of Weight Loss Drug" »

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced what could amount to a nationwide recall of children's Tylenol and dozens of other over-the-counter medicines. The FDA conducted an inspection at a McNeil drug plant in Pennsylvania that has resulted in the recall of more than 40 varieties of liquid pediatric medicines Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl and Zyrtec. These products may contain metal particles over the limit allowed to meet safety requirements.

Following the discovery that some of the Tylenol products from its plant could contain metal, McNeil initiated a voluntary recall of all products manufactured at that plant. According to McNeil, its April 2010 recall was a precautionary measure and was not based on "adverse medical events". The McNeil recall included not only Tylenol products, but also other popular children's medicines, such as children's Motrin, Zyrtec, and Benadryl products

Tylenol is one of the brands made by a unit of Johnson & Johnson. One of the major distributors of these pediatric liquid products is Perrigo, a company based in Michigan that supplies children medicines to big pharmacy companies like Walgreens and CVS. Perrigo has also received a warning from the FDA that it has committed serious manufacturing errors of its own. Tablets of ibuprofen reportedly contained metal shavings.

Also reported by the FDA are questions of safety and reliability of these products. Other deficiencies in the report included bacterial contamination of raw products, inadequate maintenance of equipment and the fact that no follow up was conducted to investigate 46 consumer complaints as to foreign materials and black or dark particles in the products. Some of the complaints are more than a year old.

Click here for the full list of all the recalled Tylenol products.

For additional information on the timeline of the Tylenol recall, see Parija Kavilanz's article at CNNMoney.com.

Continue reading "Children's Tylenol Recalled By FDA" »

In the recently-filed Illinois product liability case of Padilla v. Hunter Douglas Window Coverings, Inc., No. 09-cv-1222 (Jan 19, 2010), the Northern District of Illinois Court reviewed the Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether the plaintiff's complaint set out sufficient claims of liability against the three defendants. While the court ultimately decided that there were sufficient claims for potential negligence and liability on behalf of the defendants, if it had ruled that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient claim then the Illinois product liability claim would have been dismissed.

The review of the complaint in this lawsuit was prompted by the defense filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under the Federal Rule 12(b)(6), the Court examines the Complaint to ensure it satisfies the following requirements:

• provides a clear and concise claim showing that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive relief from the defendants and that the defendants had fair notice of the underlying problem;

• a set of facts that are sufficient to support its arguments of liability on behalf of the defendant(s).

The Illinois product liability lawsuit was filed after the plaintiff's toddler died after becoming entangled in a metal cord at his home's mini blinds. The complaint was direct towards product's manufacturer, Hunter Douglas Window Covering, and two industry trade groups involved in reviewing the safety of the mini blinds in question. Defendant WCMA is a window covering industry trade group responsible for the development and implementation of manufacturing standards. Defendant WCSC is a coalition of window covering manufacturers set up to correct the strangulation hazard posed by window coverings, such as those involved in Padilla.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Liability Claim Underscores the Importance of Filing a Well-Drafted Complaint" »

An Illinois product defect case was reviewed by the Illinois Appellate Court to determine whether the Illinois trial court had erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant transporter company. In Graham v. Bostrom Seating, Inc., et al., No. 5-08-0409, the Illinois Appellate Court evaluated issues of whether the transporting company was involved in the distribution of the defective truck and thereby whether they could be held liable for the Illinois defective product lawsuit.

Graham involves a plaintiff who was injured in an International truck that was equipped with a defective seat. The truck involved in the case was owned by the defendant, Cassens Transport Company. In Graham, the plaintiff alleged that Cassens was liable for the the defective seat under Illinois product liability principles because the company served as a distributor and seller of the truck.

The plaintiff's liability claims revolved around their claims that Cassens “was in a position to make the truck reasonably safe,” and was “aware at all times . . . of the defects and/or potential for injury arising from the placement of the truck in question into the stream of commerce.” The plaintiff further alleged that Cassens profited directly from the truck's sale, or by channeling of savings for profits to its affiliated corporations or its board of directors/stockowners.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Defect Case Reviewed By Illinois Appellate Court: Lower Court Ruling on Product Defect-Chain of Distribution Reversed" »

An Illinois prescription drug case that originally had been dismissed due to issues of federal preemption, has been reinstated by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. This case, Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a Glaxo SmithKline, No. 08-2265,___F.3d___, 2010 WL 605922 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2010) may be the first decision that addresses preemption with respect to prescription drugs.

The original Illinois prescription drug lawsuit was brought by the parents of 23 year-old Tricia Mason after she committed suicide just two days after being started on the prescription drug Paxil. The Illinois prescription drug lawsuit alleged that Paxil increases the risk in suicide in children and young adult, which the manufacturer should have known and therefore had a duty to warn its users.

The lawsuit alleged that GSK violated Illinois law by choosing not to warn Tricia Mason on its label that Paxil increases the risk of suicide for children and young adults. Two years after the decedent's suicide, Paxil added a label warning of an increased risk of suicide among children taking the drug.

Continue reading "Wyeth v. Levine Used to Reverse Pre-Emption of Chicago Pharmaceutical Litigation Case Against Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK)" »

Toyota recently announced another recall in the long line of Toyota recalls instituted since Toyota's September 2009 recalls. In the past year around 8 million Toyota vehicles have been recalled and now over 400,000 of their hybrid vehicles, including the high selling Prius, have been recalled.

The unusually large number of recalls due to potential product defects have caught the attention of the top safety officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and other top auto safety officials have made requests for information from Toyota since November, but the manufacturer has yet to comply with the requests.

It has been suggested by a senior American Transportation official that executives at Toyota were "dragging things out" and that the U.S. officials have had it with the automaker's lack of corporation regarding its auto product defects. The official goes on to state that they "were getting excuses [from Toyota] that didn’t make sense anymore.”

Continue reading "Toyota Recalls Reaches New High As Models Expand to Include Prius and Other Hybrids" »

After a long and complicated battle, a major victory for class action and product defect lawsuits was noted in the case of Carideo v. Dell, Inc. In light of new events, the United States District Court Judge found that the computer company’s mandatory arbitration clause and class action ban was “unenforceable”.

Citing product liability claims, Carideo alleged that Dell manufactured and marketed laptops priced between $1,300 and $1,700 that were defectively designed and manufactured. Upon the filing of Carideo, Dell moved to compel arbitration based on its mandatory arbitration clause. Under this clause, the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) was assigned as the arbitrator and class actions were banned. Furthermore, Dell’s forum consumer contract also has a Texas choice of law provision. In June 2007, at Dell’s urging, Texas law was applied to Carideo, which resulted in arbitration being ordered by the court.

However, the following year another case involving similar facts, McKee v. AT&T, the Washington Supreme Court struck down AT&T’s class action ban and held that the phone company’s new choice of law provision was unenforceable. Shortly after the McKee decision, Minnesota's Attorney General sued NAF, which prompted the company to announce it would no longer be arbitrating consumer disputes. And because NAF was the mandatory arbitrator assigned to all of Dell's cases, Carideo's decision was reevaluated by the original judge.

Continue reading "Mandatory Arbitration Clause Defeated in Carideo v. Dell, Inc." »

According to the Chicago Tribune, since 2001 over 1,000 Toyota and Lexus owners have reported that their cars having suddenly accelerated on their own. Sometimes these runaway cars were found after crashing into trees, parked cars, brick walls, and other obstacles. In fact, some of these crashes have resulted in death with as many as 19 deaths directly related to sudden accelerations reported over the last ten years.

To date there have been no less than eight investigations into the sudden accelerations in Toyota and Lexus cars by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over the last seven years. NHTSA investigated the cases from all angles, including whether there was any product defect responsible for the occurrences.

Toyota recalled around 85,000 vehicles in response to two of those inquiries, but the federal agency closed six other cases without finding a defect. Some of those cases closed by federal officials were those in which drivers said they were unable to stop runaway cars even trying to stop by using their brakes. In spite of the NHTSA closing some of these cases, fatal crashes involving Toyota cars have continued to rise.

Continue reading "Could Product Defect Be at Fault? Toyota and Lexus Cars Reported to Have Numerous Sudden Acceleration Accidents" »

Yesterday Toyota announced its largest recall ever when it announced its plan to recall 3.8 million vehicles due to a product defect. According to the auto manufacturer, the vehicles in question are equipped with a floor mat that causes the accelerator pedal to become stuck.

As a temporary solution, the federal government and Toyota are encouraging vehicle owners to simply remove the driver's side floor mat. Toyota advised that until the manufacturer comes up with a solution regarding the defective product, owners should simply remove the mats rather than bringing the vehicle to the dealership.

An alert has been issued by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the Toyota floor mats warning drivers that stuck accelerator pedals could lead to high speeds and deadly crashes. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, reinforced this message in a recent statement, in which he "strongly urge[d] owners of these vehicles to remove mats or other obstacles that could lead to unintended accelerations".

Continue reading "Toyota Announces Largest Ever Recall - 3.8 Million Vehicles Recalled for Defective Floor Mats" »

Increased reports of medical problems associated with certain nutritional supplements has prompted The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a public health advisory on body building supplements. These supplements may contain steroids or steroid-like substances and may be associated with kidney failure and liver failure in men.

While the FDA has not specified exactly how many products fall into this category, it advised that consumers not to purchase and use products labeled with words such as “anabolic” or “tren” or phrases like “blocks estrogen” and “minimizes gyno”. In addition, the FDA cautions consumers to be wary of body-building products claiming to enhance or diminish the effects of hormones like testosterone, estrogen or progestin.

Of those products that the FDA did specifically name, those included MASS Xtreme, TREN-Xtreme, ESTRO Xtreme, HMG Xtreme, AH-89-Xtreme, MMA-3 Xtreme, TT-40-Xtreme, and VNS-9 Xtreme, all of which contained hidden and potentially dangerous steroids. The FDA has taken action in the form of sending a warning letter to these drugs' manufacturer, Americell-Labs, stating that the company should produce products that are in compliance with federal regulations.

Continue reading "FDA Warns Consumers on Body-Building Products Sold As Nutritional Supplements" »

The U.S. government has struck a deal with General Motors (GM) that requires the car manufacturer to assume responsibility for any automobile product liability lawsuits filed after GM emerges from bankruptcy as a new, government-owned company. This requirement even applies to claims regarding vehicles manufactured by the old GM.

This agreement is much better for the general public than GM's original plan, which would have barred any new product liability lawsuits being filed against the new company. However, lawmakers had a problem with leaving the American public without any legal recourse for personal injuries resulting from car and truck product defects. The deal that resulted in the present requirement resolved this problem that could have stalled GM’s plan for a quick restructuring program.

And while future vehicle product liability claims are protected, it appears that previously filed product liability claims will likely remained tied to the old GM and therefore be tied to its bankruptcy proceedings. Typically, after a company files for bankruptcy the courts and bankruptcy protection allow that company to leave any legal claims behind so that they can emerge from bankruptcy with a clean slate.

Continue reading "Automotive Product Liability Claims Against General Motors Will Continue To Stand Even After Bankruptcy " »

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised consumers that products sold under the Hydroxycut branded name could cause liver and heart problems. The FDA Hydroxycut advisory stated that "although liver damage appears to be relatively rare, FDA believes consumers should not be exposed to unnecessary risks.” The results were that its products were recalled.

Chicago and Illinois residents have reported symptoms of adverse affects from taking Hydroxycut, which range from stomach and abdominal pain, excessive fatigue, recurring headaches, excessive weakness, vomiting, loss of appetite, to kidney failure and liver damage severe enough to require a liver transplant.

Hydroxycut products are dietary supplements that were marketed for weight loss as fat burners, energy-enhancers, low carbohydrate diet aides, and for water loss. The brand names are marketed by Iovate Health Sciences, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., Muscle Tech, among other brand names.

The FDA has asked that healthcare professionals and consumers report any serious adverse or side effects from the taking of these products.

Continue reading "Illinois Hydroxycut Users Showing Symptoms Described by FDA" »

Medtronic, the maker of Sprint Fidelis, a heart defibrillator cable, has taken its product off the market. But the problem with it still being used by some 150,000 people around Illinois and the country has resulted in several deaths in removing the defective cable.

Medtronic estimates that the cable has failed in a little more than 5% of patients after 45 months of being implanted. But as a preventive measure, some patients with working cables are having them removed.

Already 4 patients have died during extractions. It is feared that the toll could quickly rise if such procedures are not performed by skilled doctors at medical centers that have performed many of these operations.

“I think we are seeing the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Charles J. Love, a cardiologist at who specializes in cable extractions. For many patients around Illinois, the big issue is who is skilled enough to remove these defective heart implants. It is thought that some surgeons removing the cables do not have the required skill level.

Continue reading "Extraction Of Defective Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis Cables Causes Deaths" »

In a recent Chicago product defect case, the pace of settlement negotiations were perhaps hastened because in November 2008 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that defendants in negligence suits who settle prior to trial, should not be named on jury verdict forms for the purpose of apportioning liability (Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., et al., WL 5046833).

The recent Illinois product liability case involved involving a punch press operator and settled for over $5 million. Both of the worker's arms were amputated after a punch press malfunctioned and part of the machine crushed both arms.

Seven years ago a U.S. District Court judge approved a $1.1 million settlement in this same Illinois product defect case, which released one of the manufacturers of the machine that caused the injury. However, the case wasn't over as there two remaining manufacturer parties still involved in the Illinois product liability case.

Continue reading "Illinois Product Liability Case Involving Product Defect Hastened by Illinois Supreme Court Decision" »

Car and truck manufacturers have largely ignored the product defects causing insufficient occupant protection and rollover crashes until recently, relying instead on inadequate minimum government standards. However, this is changing in light of increased pressure from a consumer-friendly government coupled with years of having to compensate victims of rollover deaths and personal injuries. These manufacturers are now taking steps to protect the public.

In 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed an upgrade to the 1973 version of the federal roof crush standard for automobile manufacturers. At that time, the standard was so weak that most occupants in a rollover would be severely injured or killed. That standard merely requires a vehicle roof resist a static force of 1.5 times the empty weight of the vehicle or 5,000 lbs., whichever is less. This kind of standard does not reflect the dynamic forces that a vehicle typically experiences in an actual rollover. In virtually every rollover, the roof makes contact with the ground on one side or then the other.

Continue reading "Car, SUV And Truck Rollover Accidents No Longer Being Ignored By Manufacturers" »

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed a $27 million jury verdict award and ordered a new trial after applying the risk-utility test of Illinois product design liability in favor of the defendant. This is a new application of the risk-utility test, which typically falls in favor of the plaintiff.

Illinois' strict design defect theory applies one of two tests to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. The first test is the “consumer expectation” test, under which the plaintiff must show that the product is more unreasonably dangerous than a typical consumer would realize when purchasing it.

The other test is the “risk-utility”, or “risk-benefit” test. Under the risk-utility test the consumer must prove that the danger associated with a product outweighs the product's benefits. Under the risk-utility design the product manufacturer may also prove that the product's benefits outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the product's design.

In Mikolajczyk v Ford Motor Co, 2008 W.L. 4603565 (Ill.Supp.Ct. 2008) , the Supreme Court applied the risk-utility test to determine whether the product was defective under Illinois law. In Mikolajczyk, the plaintiff died of injuries sustained when another vehicle crashed into the rear end of his Ford Escort. His widow brought a claim regarding the defective design of the driver's seat against the Ford Motor Company and Mazda Motor Corporation.

Continue reading "Product Liability Case Reversed When Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Risk-Utility Design Test" »

Last week Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit against SFCA, Inc., a distributor of baby cribs, bassinets and playpens, claiming that SFCA continues to sell and distribute the subject bassinet, even after voluntarily recalling 1,000,000 of the products in 2007.

The bassinet allegedly has design flaws. Federal regulators warned consumers that the bassinet caused the death of two infants. The bassinets are equipped with sides that drop down for easy access to the baby. Unfortunately the design creates a gap that the baby can slide through. The two infants that died did slide through and hung to death.

SFCA is not taking responsibility regarding the product liability claim for the defective bassinet, which is manufactured and marketed through Simplicity, Inc., a subsidiary company of SFCA, Inc. SFCA maintains that it wasn’t responsible for the items produced by Simplicity because it only just bought the Simplicity brand in August 2008. Yet closer examination reveals that SFCA bought the Simplicity brand bassinets, but then shipped them from its own facility using the same design of the products that killed the 2 infants.

Continue reading "Illinois Attacks Distributor of Defective Baby Cribs" »

The U.S. Food and Drug Association is responsible for ensuring that new medical devices are safe enough to be put on the market. As a federal agency, the FDA controls regulation nationwide and within Illinois and Chicago. But what most consumers don't know is that the process for approving these medical devices doesn't always ensure that they are effective alternatives to already established medical treatments.

The majority of newly approved medical devices undergo a 501(k) review. Under this review process the manufacturer needs to prove that their device is substantially similar to another device that has already been approved for the market. Once they have done that, the manufacturer just needs to show that the device does what it claims. Yet in the field of medicine, just performing a function is different than guaranteeing the supposed outcome.

For example, let's suppose that Elaine, an Illinois woman, was trying to decide between which type of radiation she should get to treat her breast cancer. Her options range from conventional radiation, which would irradiate her whole breast five times per week for a total of five weeks, to a newly-FDA approved radiation therapy method called MammoSite brachytherapy. This new method only requires radiation for five days and uses radioactive 'seeds' to treat the cancer.

All things being equal, the MammoSite option is much more appealing because it gets the job done in a fraction of the time and is Elaine's first choice. Her doctor recommends it and she decides to go with the newer treatment option. However, what Elaine doesn't know is that even though MammoSite is FDA-approved, the long-term effectiveness of the treatment is not yet proven. While early studies have come back with promising results, it will be years before there is enough data to determine whether it is as effective as conventional radiation. Yet many of the women undergoing this form of treatment are unaware that it is still in an experimental state and are trusting the FDA-approval and their doctors' recommendation.

Continue reading "Are All FDA Approved Devices Safe?" »

An Illinois federal judge upheld a jury verdict for a woman permanently disabled in a motorcycle crash even though her expert witness did not pinpoint the exact cause of the crash. McCloud v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. America, Ltd. WL 2323792 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2008).

Trish McCloud was severely injured in 2002 when the rear tire blew out on her Honda Gold Wing motorcycle. Her expert witness narrowed down the tire defect to three possible manufacturing errors by defendant, Goodyear. Based on his testimony the jury awarded her damages under her Illinois product liability claim.

Goodyear asked for a new trial, in part because it felt that McCloud's expert had not adequately proved that its product was defective. McCloud's expert had testified that the blowout was the result of a nylon cord getting embedded in the tire's innermost layer rather than the layers of rubber, which was where it belonged. This then caused a bubble to form in the sidewall layer of the tire, which eventually burst. Her expert posed three different ways this Illinois product defect could have occurred during the manufacturing process, but did not pinpoint which one specifically was the cause.

In response, Goodyear reasoned that the blowout was the result of the tire being overloaded and under-inflated. It argued that the motorcycle itself was overweight, which would have contributed to this blowout, and further cited inadequate checking of the tire pressure by the owner. Furthermore, the fact that none of its other customers had reported a similar problem was a factor to be considered.

Continue reading "Goodyear Tire Defect in Motorcycle Accident Case Decision Stands: Illinois Court Allows Expert Opinions Without Pinpointing Precise Cause of Crash" »

Consider the following scenario. You work at a Chicago manufacturing factory. One day the machine you operate becomes jammed. In order to try to remove the jammed material you remove the machine's guard and place your hand inside. But as you do this the machine starts up and crushes your hand. You are now permanently disabled and unable to do your job. What are your legal options?
Because of Illinois worker's compensation law you are limited to recover against your employer in the Illinois Industrial Commission and cannot bring a separate civil lawsuit directly against your employer. But if your injury at work involved a machine or product then you may be able to recover damages from the manufacturer in a product liability claim brought as a separate civil suit.

The most common product liability claim from work-related injuries is due to the product's lack of safety features, such as a guard or an automatic shut-off that is activated when the guard was removed, or a release lever that kills the power instantly. When a product fails to include a reasonable safety feature that makes it unduly dangerous to its user then the manufacturer can be held liable for any injuries sustained while operating the machine.

Continue reading "Injured at Work? Illinois Workers Could Have a Product Liability Case" »

The parents of 8-month-old Joshua Flax filed suit against DaimlerChrysler after their son was killed in a car accident involving their 1998 Dodge Caravan. The wrongful death case centered on the allegedly defective design of the minivan's front seat backs. Jeremy Flax, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., et al.

Joshua Flax was in the back seat of the minivan when it was rear-ended. The impact caused the front seat to collapse and its passenger to strike Joshua in the head, fracturing his skull. No other passengers were seriously injured and all parties agreed that Joshua was only fatally injured because of the product liability of the collapsed seat.

In late 2004, a jury found DaimlerChrysler's seats to be defective and unreasonably dangerous, awarding a total of $105,500,000 to Joshua's parents. This amount was later reduced, but the verdict was upheld all the way through the Supreme Court.

Continue reading "Collapsed Seat In Dodge Caravan Found Unsafe and Cause for Infant's Death" »

Defendant Mancari's Chrysler Plymouth dealership in Cook County lucked out with an ideological “get out of trial free” card in a product liability case involving a car sold at his dealership. Murphy v. Mancari's Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. 2008 WL 927727.

The Illinois Appellate Court's clarification of section 2-261 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure makes it easier for non-manufacturers to be dismissed from strict product liability cases in Illinois. The relevant section states that

"A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer . . . where the plaintiff can show . . . That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage". 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c)(2).

So if plaintiff could prove that the defendant knew about the product defect then the defendant could not be dismissed from case. However, Murphy takes this interpretation a step further to determine whether it is enough that defendant just knows about the alleged defect or whether they need to know that the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous, too?

In Murphy, Plaintiff Joseph Murphy claimed that he was paralyzed in a rollover accident because his Sebring lacked a roll bar safety device. He alleged that Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth sold him a Sebring that was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a roll bar. Mancari confirmed that they knew that the vehicle did not have a roll bar, but still claimed that this did not make them directly responsible.

Continue reading "Product Liability Litigation Avoided by Cook County Car Dealership: Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies Product Defect Statute" »

NASCAR driver Michael McDowell walked away from a violent rollover car crash during a race at the Texas Motor Speedway earlier this year. After skidding into a wall and flipping across the track several times he climbed out of his crashed vehicle unhurt. This complete lack of injury is unimaginable in your typical car, but NASCAR vehicles come equipped with roll bars to prevent roof crush in rollover crashes.

Unfortunately your typical street car doesn't come equipped with as stringent safety standards as those enforced by NASCAR. Currently the roof crush standard in the United States requires that the roof must be able to withstand pressure of at least 1.5 times the vehicle's weight. This is the same standard which was established in 1973 and has remained unchanged since its inception. In 2005 Congress proposed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) upgrade its standards in an effort to reduce injuries and fatalities from rollover crashes.

Recently NHTSA came to Congress with a proposal for increasing the weight ratio to 2.5. The minimal increase has drawn a lot of controversy with its opponents calling the increase ineffective. In 2007, over 10,000 people died in rollover crashes. In Illinois there were over 5,000 rollover accidents in just 2006. Yet the NHTSA estimates that its proposed increase would only result in 13 to 44 fewer rollover fatalities a year. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) stated, "If we have a little increase in roof strength that doesn't result in a major decrease in injuries and fatalities, we've done nothing."

And while the ratio change is minimal and drawn criticism as being ineffective there is another controversy surrounding the bill. Possibly worse yet the NHTSA proposal has a throw in; the agency inserted language which would preempt car accident victims from suing any manufacturer who met the minimum standard.

Continue reading "NHTSA's Roof Crush Standard: Opponents Decry as Ineffective and a Smokescreen for Stripping Consumer's Legal Rights" »