Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Unfortunately, in the normal course of our law practice, we have encountered clients who have sustained serious burn injuries. These cases are always extremely painful for clients and oftentimes results in permanent disfigurement. Indeed, a burn injury is one of the most painful injuries anyone can sustain and unfortunately we have seen them arise in a variety of contexts, whether it be gasoline fires after automobile accidents, accidents within the home due to defective products and/or chemical burns sustained on the job.

One of the complications of burn injury cases is trying to make sure that one has an accurate assessment of the future. While plastic surgery at present can eliminate some of the acute signs of injury, many times plastic surgery will be needed in the future. Oftentimes, despite the best care of plastic surgeons, permanent disfigurement may remain.

In assessing damages in a serious burn injury case, counsel must confer with the plastic surgeons responsible for the care and treatment of the client/patient to make sure that the client’s prognosis is well understood. The degree of permanent disfigurement, obviously, must be taken into consideration in assessing the damages for such clients as well as the impact on their overall quality of life and, usually, the high amount of medical expenses involved.

One of the very interesting parts of handling such cases is seeing the strength and character of those unfortunate enough to sustain such injuries. We have witnessed many serious injury clients handle themselves with grace, fortitude and strength of character when faced with a serious injury. Remarkably, many of these people are extremely courageous and show tremendous depth of character when overcoming such difficulties. It is a pleasure to help such clients in such difficult circumstances.

Our office has been contacted on numerous occasions by individuals seeking restitution for the loss of a life of a loved one due to a house fire. In some cases the house fire may be caused by a malfunctioning device. In other cases the fire’s consequences may have been escaped had a smoke detector been functioning properly. In other cases, an electrical water heater may explode or there may be problems with a gas line or some other component of the house itself which causes the fire. While all cases are different, whenever a wrongful death results from a house fire, the tragedy can be compounded if there is not a proper investigation following the fire itself.

The causes of some fires can never be determined many times due to the blaze itself. The fire consumes all the evidence and it is impossible to determine the actual cause or origin of the fire. In other cases, however, if there is enough remaining evidence after the fire for forensic examination, a cause, in fact, can be determined. What is vital in all of these cases is that there be a scene investigation conducted by the local Fire Marshall’s Office and that counsel for the survivors of those killed in the fire be retained to review their work and also to conduct an independent examination of the site. The sooner one works on such a case to preserve all available evidence, the better the opportunity for uncovering evidence which will support a viable claim, whether it be a product liability claim, claim against a negligent contractor or otherwise. In any case in which a wrongful death occurs as a result a house or trailer fire, family members may wish to consult counsel on behalf of the survivors if for no other reason than to make sure that an adequate on-site investigation is conducted either by the authorities or by private investigators. Sometimes the failure to act in an expeditious manner can result in crucial evidence being overlooked and/or in crucial evidence being destroyed. A failure to preserve evidence is the biggest reason why claims are unsuccessful when house fires are involved, thus it is imperative that an investigation be conducted as soon as is possible under the circumstances.

Time and again here at our firm we see situations where clients may have been injured by defective products but due to the failure preserve crucial evidence, the claim oftentimes is irretrievably lost. An example might be an exploding tire where there is a tire blowout which causes a vehicle to overturn. Unless the tire itself is preserved as evidence and can be examined to determine the cause of its failure, for obvious reasons, it would be impossible to prove a defective product due to a design or manufacturing problem with the product as opposed to poor maintenance, under inflation, over inflation or other sundry causes other than a defect in the product. The same is true for house fires which result is serious injuries or death where a suspected heater, air conditioning unit or air purifier is believed to have caused the fire. Unless the product is preserved and examined by an expert, the evidence necessary to prove a products liability claim will be missing and therefore the claim virtually impossible to pursue.

In any case where serious injuries or a wrongful death results from a situation where a defective product is believed to have contributed to the incident, it is absolutely imperative that all available evidence be preserved for examination by experts. Obviously, the initial focus in such cases is on the injury or death and not the possibility of a lawsuit. However, if the cause of the incident is believed to be a defective product, nonetheless, family members, investigators, law enforcement personnel and other people connected to the incident should do what they can to preserve the evidence for later examination. The family can hardly be blamed for remembering to do so during a time of personal tragedy and grief but family friends, outsiders, investigators and other personnel connected to the incident can and should do so in order to have the claim properly investigated. Absent preservation of critical evidence, it may be impossible to obtain justice for the victim of a dangerous and defective product.

Approximately 2 years ago we published an article on the dangers of unsafe and dangeous glass products. We re-print this article because of the tragic death of a young woman who fell to her death this week after falling through a window at a hotel in downtown Atlanta. This accident was preventable but occurred because safety glass was apparently not properly used. In today's modern age, with the known dangers involved, this is inexcusable. Our earlier blog entry is posted again in view of this tragedy:

"We are continually disturbed when we hear reports of persons injured by unsafe glass--decades after the need for "safety glazing" material (safety glass) was recognized. Our serious personal injury lawyers have delved deeply into the history of glass injuries in representing clients who have suffered what can be life-threatening injuries from unsafe glass, in premises liability cases tried successfully. We hope to share what we have learned about these dangerous products so that future injuries from dangerous glass can be prevented.

For more than thirty (30) years, the dangers of using glass that leaves sharp, jagged edges when it breaks has been known.

In a 1972 opinion, one court discussed the dangers of glass injuries from glass that was not "safety glass": “‘Purposeful footsteps, impact, the harsh, shattering crash of jagged spears of glass falling and disintegrating on the floor, and disabling and disfiguring injuries or death -- this sequence of events is acted out, according to safety experts, in 40,000 American homes annually.’” Moody v. Southland Inv. Corp., 126 Ga. App. 225, 230, 190 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1972) (quoting Wolfstone, “Glass Door Accidents,” 14 Am. Jur. Trials 101, 105).

The 1972 Moody case concerned a patio door made of non-tempered glass that shattered and injured the plaintiff. The Court discussed testimony from experts that “serious injuries are caused by nontempered glass,” and that “[t]empered glass is harder, and it won’t break as easily, and then when it breaks, it doesn’t come in sharp, jagged pieces, where you are liable to get cut.” Id. at 229, 190 S.E.2d at 581. The Court also observed that “tempered glass was available for use on the door [in question] in 1967, when it was first installed.” Id. at 228, 190 S.E.2d at 580.

For many decades, manufacturers, builders, and architects have known that “plate glass” which breaks in a sharp jagged way. Much of this information has been summarized in a Report in one of our cases prepared by Phillip L. Graitcer, DMD, MPH, who has been an Adjunct Professor at the Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta, and is the former Director of the International Unit of the “National Center for Injury Prevention and Control” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

To summarize some of the major points of this Report, at least by 1962, a national study group began studying injuries from broken glass in doors. Nationwide publicity of this problem followed, and performance standards were developed, such as ANSI Z-97.1, for safety glazing that, when impacted, was less likely to cause serious injury. A manufacturer’s trade group had developed a mandatory requirement for safety glazing in sliding aluminum doors, and proposed in the mid-1960s that all model building codes require safety glazing in glass used in doors.

By 1968, all three model building codes had adopted these requirements. In 1969, a Consumer Safety Glazing Committee was formed to promote use of safety glazing materials, and it advocated a Model Safety Glazing Bill. By 1970, states including Georgia had enacted safety glazing laws prohibiting use of anything but safety glazing materials in door glass. O.C.G.A. § 8-2-90, et seq.

In 1963 the Federal Housing Administration began requiring safety glazing in most sliding doors and other locations in new houses insured by FHA loans. Federal regulations, 16 C.F.R. part 1201 et seq., were developed that required safety glazing in exit doors and other “hazardous locations” in 1977.

Moreover, by 1963 and continuing thereafter, articles and pamphlets began to be disseminated describing the dangers of non-safety glazing material. Such articles appeared in education and other publications. Moreover, school risk managers consider glass in doors an injury risk.

Further, because ordinary glass breaks with sharp fragments, it is much more likely to cause serious injury than safety glazing. Glass used in or near exit doors is one on the most common source of injuries, although numerous glass products made of unsafe glass have continually led to serious injury and wrongful death.

It is shocking that, in a new century, dangerous products and buildings using something other than safety glazing continue to injure and kill unsuspecting children and adults. This is a public health hazard that we will continue working to stop."

U.S. Department of Transportation recently released figures revealing that the number and rate of traffic fatalities in 2010 fell to the lowest levels since 1949, despite a significant increase in the number of miles Americans drove during the year.

This decrease is below the record drop reported in 2009.

In a press release U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, stated "Last year's drop in traffic fatalities is welcome news and it proves that we can make a difference." He said "Still, too many of our friends and neighbors are killed in preventable roadway tragedies every day. We will continue doing everything possible to make cars safer, increase seat belt use, put a stop to drunk driving and distracted driving and encourage drivers to put safety first."

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) early projections, the number of traffic fatalities fell three percent between 2009 and 2010, from 33,808 to 32,788. Since 2005, fatalities have dropped 25 percent, from a total of 43,510 fatalities in 2005.

The same estimates also project that the fatality rate will be the lowest recorded since 1949, with 1.09 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, down from the 1.13 fatality rate for 2009. The decrease in fatalities for 2010 occurred despite an estimated increase of nearly 21 billion miles in U.S. vehicle miles traveled.

A regional breakdown showed the greatest drop in fatalities occurred in the Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska, where they dropped by 12 percent. Arizona, California and Hawaii had the next steepest decline, nearly 11 percent.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has taken a comprehensive approach to reducing roadway fatalities by promoting strong traffic safety laws coupled with high-visibility enforcement and through rigorous vehicle safety programs and public awareness campaigns.

In 2009, the U.S. DOT launched a highly visible national anti-distracted driving campaign modeled on other successful NHTSA efforts to reduce fatalities, such as its "Over the Limit. Under Arrest." and "Click It Or Ticket" campaigns to curb drunk driving and increase seat belt use.

The U.S. DOT has launched a dedicated website, Distraction.gov, to provide the public with a comprehensive source of information on distracted driving. DOT has also hosted two national summits devoted to the issue, crafted sample legislation which states can use to adopt distracted driving laws, and initiated pilot law enforcement programs in Hartford, Conn., and Syracuse, N.Y.

NHTSA has also taken action to improve vehicle safety. The agency has urged automakers to swiftly and voluntarily report safety defects to keep the driving public safe. NHTSA has also encouraged the development and use of technologies to prevent crashes, such as electronic stability control, forward collision warning and lane departure warning systems.

NHTSA also crafted an updated 5-star rating system in 2010, which established more rigorous crash-test standards and began providing consumers with improved information about which cars perform best in collisions.

Elderly nursing home patients have been routinely receiving costly antipsychotic drugs which increase their risk of death and are not approved for their treatment.

According to a report from the Health and Human Services Department’s inspector general, 88 percent of the antipsychotic drugs administered in nursing homes were prescribed for uses that the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved.

Nearly one in seven elderly nursing home residents, nearly all of them with dementia, are given powerful atypical antipsychotic drugs even though the medicines increase the risks of death and are not approved for such treatments, the government audit found.

More than half of the antipsychotics paid for by the federal Medicare program in the first half of 2007 were “erroneous,” the study found, costing the program $116 million for those six months.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) want Medicare to explain why it wrongly paid millions of dollars in claims for drugs that were given to seniors for these unapproved uses.

Medicare provides coverage for some unapproved uses, but the senators suggested that the report’s findings might indicate a flawed decision-making system.

The Medicare agency said in its response to the inspector general’s report that it should have denied more than half the claims it paid for the use of antipsychotics in nursing homes.

The inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services went so far as to state that “government, taxpayers, nursing home residents as well as their families and caregivers should be outraged and seek solutions.”

According to the audit, some of the drugs such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon are potentially lethal to many of the patients getting them and that some drug manufacturers illegally marketed their medicines for these uses.

In response to the audit, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that some of the inappropriate use of antipsychotics in elderly nursing home patients is a result of drug makers’ paying kickbacks to nursing homes to increase prescriptions for the medicines.

Omnicare Inc., a pharmacy chain for nursing homes, paid $98 million in November 2009 to settle accusations that it received kickbacks from Johnson & Johnson and other drug makers for antipsychotic prescriptions.

The government auditors found that of the 2.1 million elderly patients in nursing homes during the first six months of 2007, 304,983 had at least one Medicare claim for an antipsychotic medicine. Nursing home residents received 20 percent of the 8.5 million claims for antipsychotic medicines for all Medicare beneficiaries at a cost of $309 million during those six months.

Federal rules require that any drugs that are paid for by the government be given only for uses that are approved either by the government or one of three independent drug usage encyclopedias. Auditors found that 51 percent, or 726,000 of 1.4 million claims, for antipsychotic medicines did not meet this criterion and were thus paid for by the government improperly.

It was announced today that Ford Motor Company has recalled 2005 and 2006 year model F-150 pickup trucks because of problems with unexpected and unintended airbag deployments. According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, the recall involves approximately 150,000 F-150 pickup trucks. It appears that front airbags have been deploying unannounced. Obviously, this could lead to an accident if the airbag deploys while the vehicle is being driven or otherwise causes a distraction that might cause a driver to lose control. Ford officials have stated that an improperly installed wire in the steering wheel may be the cause of the random unanticipated airbag deployments. Hopefully, all of these vehicles will be repaired without further incident because otherwise a serious collision could occur.

Any owner of a 2005/2006 F-150 pick up truck should immediately take the vehicle in for inspection and repair. Otherwise, an airbag could deploy at a most inconvenient time which could result in a serious accident.

Cribs, playpens, and bassinets continue to injure and kill infants with alarming frequency.

A study published this week in the journal Pediatrics reveals the alarming frequency of injuries to babies who have been placed in cribs, playpens or bassinets.

A review of emergency-room treatments for more than 181,000 babies age 2 and under from 1990 to 2008 showed an average of 113 deaths per year from accidents associated with those three pieces of nursery equipment.

The number which is considered low because such deaths are typically under-reported is far higher than should be acceptable, the authors note. But they are not especially surprising, as such fatalities have been tracked before.

The new information that this study tracks is the number of non-fatal, but often quite serious, injuries to babies who have been placed in cribs, playpens or bassinets. According to the study, an average of 26 such injuries per day occurred during the time studied, with most (66 percent) involving falls, usually from cribs (83 percent) and most commonly affecting the head or neck (40 percent).

The study calls for creation and implementation of safety measures in the design and construction of cribs, playpens and bassinets. It also recommends that parents be told how to safely use such equipment and made aware of dangers they may pose.

Still, the authors note that parents and other caregivers use such equipment to keep babies out of harm's way when the caregiver isn't able to constantly watch the child.
The study’s authors contend that caregivers cannot be expected to anticipate and protect against all the kinds of harm a baby placed in a crib, playpen or bassinet might face.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission in December finally decided to ban drop sided cribs. The study found that many falls from cribs occurred when side rails either were left down or slid down when a child leaned on them.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has recalled nearly 2 million baby monitors due to the risk of infant strangulation by the monitors’ electrical cords. The CPCS initiated the recall due to seven cases of infant strangulation in recent months.
The reported injuries and deaths include:

A 10 month-old Washington, D.C. infant died in March when she became tangled in the camera cord of a Summer infant monitor. The monitor camera had been attached to the top rail of her crib;

In November of last year, a 6 month-old South Carolinia baby was also killed by baby monitor cord strangulation after the monitor was placed on the changing table attached to his crib;

A baby in Pittsburg was found in his crib with a baby monitor camera cord wrapped around his neck. The monitor had been mounted to the wall, however, the infant was able to reach the cord. He was found early enough to escape serious injury.

To ensure that no more strangulation deaths occur, Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairperson Inez Tenenbaum issued a statement urging parents and caregivers to put at least 3 feet between any video or audio baby monitor cords and a child in a crib.

The recalled baby monitors were manufactured in China and sold at major retailers, mass merchandisers and children’s product stores nationwide between January 2003 and January 2011.

The manufacturer, Woonsocket, R.I. based Summer Infant, has recalled approximately 1.7 million baby monitors including 40 different models including color, handheld, and digital video monitors. All the recalled monitors are composed of two components: the cameras that are placed in the baby's room and the hand held device which relays sound and/or video to the caregiver.

Summer Infant is also recalling rechargeable batteries sold with “Slim and Secure Video Monitors” as the Consumer Product Safety Commission warns that the monitor batteries may overheat and rupture.

Nearly 58,000 “Slim and Secure Video Monitors” were sold at Babies R Us in 2009 and 2010. There are currently five reported cases of ruptured Summer Infant "Slim and Secure Video Monitor" batteries, though no injuries have been reported.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission website, www.cpsc.gov, states that as a consequence of the recall, Summer Infant has initiated a campaign to provide new product labels stating precautions and safety instructions for the electrical cords on all the recalled baby monitors.

Unsafe dehumidifiers are the subject of a recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Approximately 198,000, GE and Professional Series brand dehumidifiers have been recalled due to a fire hazard.

These units were imported by GEA Products L.P., of Louisville, Ky., and CEM Global LLC (Professional Series) of China. They wee manufactured by GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Ltd., of China.

According to the CPSC, a component in the dehumidifier's compressor can short circuit, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

There have been 14 reports of incidents involving smoke and fumes emitting from the unit and eight reports of fires. In six of the reported fire incidents, property damage extended beyond the unit. No injuries have been reported.

Our Atlanta based attorneys recently concluded a case against another manufacturer of dehumidifiers in which a unit caught fire resulting in the death of a young child.

This recall involves 30-pint and 40-pint portable dehumidifiers manufactured between November 2006 and August 2007, and during April 2008. The dehumidifiers are white with a front-loading water bucket. "GE" or "Professional Series" and digital controls are located on top of the dehumidifier. Model and serial numbers are located on the back of the dehumidifiers. Model and serial numbers included in the recall are:

GE AHK30LK, AHW30LK, AHM30LK,
AHK40LK, AHH40LK, and AHM40LK VL1, ZL1, AM1, DM1, FM1,
GM1, HM1, LM1, MM1, RM1

CEM "Professional Series" PS78303 from C10102336010841 4100001
to C10102336010841 5103037

The units were sold at Walmart, Sam's Club, Home Depot, Menards and other retail stores nationwide from February 2007 through June 2009 for between $140 and $180.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dehumidifiers and contact Midea to determine if their product is included in the recall. Consumers with recalled dehumidifiers will return their product to an authorized service center for a free repair.

The company can be contacted toll-free at (877) 593-8721 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

Each year, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, 48 million people, that is one in six Americans, are sickened by food-borne illnesses. Of those, 180,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die.

The first major overhaul of the nation's food-safety infrastructure since 1938 was signed into law yesterday by President Obama.

The Food Safety Modernization Act moves the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) away from its early-20th-century role of responding to adulterated food to a more modern one of requiring companies to stop contamination before it happens by looking for the places where things can go wrong and fixing them.

It also allows the FDA to issue mandatory recalls and hire more food-safety inspectors.

The FDA oversees most of the nation's food supply, except for meat, poultry and processed eggs, which are the purview of the Department of Agriculture.

Much of the food industry had supported the new rules, saying they would raise the bar for the entire food industry in the words of a statement signed by 20 organizations, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the National Restaurant Association.

But, Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston, the incoming Republican chairman of the agriculture subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee has said he may not allow funding of the new system, thereby scuttling the entire program.

Republicans will control the House of Representatives when Congress reconvenes today.

Rep. Rosa DeLAuro, who most recently chaired the committee, called the new law "a significant step forward in modernizing our country's antiquated food-safety systems."

DeLauro, who first proposed food-safety legislation in 1999, noted the food system still makes people sick. At the same time as Kingston is questioning the money for the FDA's enhanced food-safety oversight, the FDA announced "that a salmonella outbreak involving alfalfa sprouts had sickened nearly 100 people in at least 15 states," she said.

Food safety isn't a partisan issue, said Carol Tucker-Foreman, with the Consumer Federation of America.

Electric adjustable beds have been singled out for causing serious injuries and death. Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to Invacare Corp. for failing to report and address malfunctions with its electric beds, including electronics that allegedly caught on fire causing injury and death.

The FDA posted a warning letter to the Ohio-based company Tuesday morning. Invacare makes a variety of medical equipment, including wheelchairs, oxygen tanks and electric beds.

In its Dec. 15 warning letter, the FDA said the company has repeatedly failed to document and investigate recurring complaints with its adjustable beds.

According to the FDA letter, between April and July last year, Invacare Corp. received four complaints involving sparks or fires that were reportedly triggered by its beds.

One complaint alleged that an Invacare bariatric bed caught fire and two patients were taken to the hospital and treated for smoke inhalation and chest pain.

Another report describes a fire that started at the foot of a bed, causing a patient's death.

Other complaints involve patients getting stuck between the mattress and bed rail.

In one report the problem allegedly caused the death of an 11-year-old child.

This is not the first time the FDA has taken Invacare to task. According to the agency, Invacare Corp. failed to submit similar complaints reported in 2009.

The FDA also alleged that Invacare's customer service representatives have not been properly trained to document problems reported by customers.

FDA inspectors uncovered the problems during a routine inspection in August. Soon afterward, Invacare told the agency it would conduct a new analysis on the risks for patients becoming trapped in its beds.

But according to the FDA letter, Invacare representatives did not provided any evidence of implementation of this corrective action.

The agency calls on Invacare to report back on its plans for correcting the problems within 15 working days of receiving the letter.

The FDA regularly issues warning letters to companies that don't follow regulations for manufacturing and marketing drugs, medical devices and other products. The letters are not legally binding, but the FDA can take companies to court if they are ignored.

Christmas toys always bring delight to young children. But, there are hidden dangers lurking in these items. As toys become more sophisticated, they often pose new dangers for children that safety experts urge parents and gift-givers to consider.

Tiny magnets, powerful batteries and laser lights are among the features on modern toys that can be just as dangerous as small parts and sharp edges have always been.

Parents need to be vigilant.

Toy-related injuries sent more than 235,000 kids to U.S. emergency rooms for treatment in 2008, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Another 19 children died as the result of a mishap involving a toy.

Choking hazards have long been a leading cause of death in children, prompting the creation of warning labels detailing small parts and recommending minimum ages for certain toys.

In recent years, riding toys have proven to be the most dangerous type of toy on the market, according to the CPSC. They were associated with the most deaths in 2008: Two children on tricycles were hit by a motor vehicle, and two others drowned after riding their tricycle into a pool. Other types of non-motorized riding toys accounted for another five deaths.

Riding toys also were associated with the most injuries. Non-motorized scooters were involved in a quarter of all toy-related injuries treated at a hospital.

Parents also should be mindful of new dangers presented by modern toys. For example, many toys contain small but powerful magnets, and magnets have proven to be incredibly dangerous.

The hazard comes when a child swallows more than one magnet. The magnets can stick together through the walls of the child's digestive tract, potentially causing internal tears or blockages.

Small batteries contained in toys present another danger to children. If swallowed, the batteries can lodge in the esophagus and cause a potentially fatal burn as the battery's current eats through the body's internal tissues. Medical experts whose research on battery hazards appeared in the June Pediatrics found that a swallowed battery has to be removed from the child's esophagus within two hours to prevent serious injury or death.

Laser pointers and toys with laser attachments also present a risk. A 15-year-old Swiss boy playing with a laser pointer accidentally beamed the laser into his eyes, permanently damaging his vision, according to a letter published Sept. 9 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The annual safest car ratings have been released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. South Korean car manufacturers Hyundai and Kia and German manufacturer Volkswagen lead the insurance industry's annual list of the safest new vehicles.

The Institute recognized 66 vehicles today with its "top safety pick award" for the 2011 model year, the most-ever awarded by the Virginia-based group. The number was more than double the 27 vehicles selected last year.

Hyundai Motor Corp. and its affiliate Kia Motors Corp.., and Volkswagen AG and its Audi brand received the most awards with nine, followed by eight awards apiece by General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp.

Hyundai's Genesis sedan, Sonata midsize and Santa Fe and Tucson sport utility vehicles picked up awards, while Kia was recognized for the Optima midsize car, the Forte and Soul small cars, and the Sorento and Sportage SUVs. Volkswagen won for the Jetta and Jetta SportWagen, the Golf and GTI small cars and the Touareg and Tiguan SUVs. Audi's A3 and A4 sedans and Q5 SUV also made the list.

Subaru and Chrysler received five awards apiece while Volvo and Mercedes had four. Subaru was the only automaker to win awards in every vehicle category in which it competes. Nissan and Honda had two awards each and Mitsubishi and BMW had one.

GM's winners include the Chevrolet Malibu, Cruze and Equinox; Cadillac CTS and SRX; Buick LaCrosse and Regal and GMC Terrain.

Ford's selected include the Ford Taurus, Fusion, Fiesta, Explorer and Flex; and the Lincoln MKS, MKZ and MKT.

Toyota, which has been beset with high-profile recalls during the past year, scored with the Toyota Avalon, Corolla, Sienna, Highlander and Venza; the Lexus RX; and the Scion tC and xB.

The vehicles were chosen for protection in front, side and rear crash tests. To qualify for the award, the insurance industry group also requires the vehicles to have anti-rollover electronic stability control, or ESC, and receive top scores in roof strength tests.

Contaminated pet food, dangerous refrigerators, and portable butane stoves have all been the subjects of recently announced recalls.

The national grocery chain, Kroger, has announced a recall of select pet foods in stores in 17 states including Georgia.

Kroger stores in the following states are included in this recall: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

The recall also includes Dillons and Gerbes stores in Kansas and Missouri; Baker's stores in Nebraska; Food 4 Less stores in Nebraska, Illinois and Indiana (Chicago area); and Jay C, Hilander, Owen's, Pay Less and Scott's stores in Illinois and Indiana.

Stores the company operates under the following names are not included in this recall: Ralphs, Fred Meyer, Fry's, King Soopers, Smith's, QFC, City Market, Foods Co., and Food 4 Less stores in California and Nevada.

Kroger is recalling the following items:

Pet Pride Cat Food sold in 3.5 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111088128

Pet Pride Cat Food sold in 18 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111071357

Pet Pride Tasty Blend Poultry & Seafood Cat Food sold in 3.5 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111088152

Pet Pride Tasty Blend Poultry & Seafood Cat Food sold in 18 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111074580

Pet Pride Kitten Formula Food sold in 3.5 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111071903

Old Yeller Chunk Dog Food sold in 22 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111074566

Old Yeller Chunk Dog Food sold in 50 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111074563

Kroger Value Cat Food sold in 3 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111000018

Kroger Value Chunk Dog Food sold in 15 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111071559

Kroger Value Chunk Dog Food sold in 50 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111000108

The affected products may contain aflatoxin, a naturally-occurring toxic chemical by-product from the growth of the fungus Aspergillus flavus on corn and other crops.

If your pet shows any symptoms of illness, including sluggishness or lethargy combined with a reluctance to eat, yellowish tint to the eyes and/or gums, and severe or bloody diarrhea, please consult a vet immediately.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of 1,400 refrigerators due to the potential for overheating. The recalled units are manufactured by Fagor Refrigerators. There have been 19 reports of incidents involving these units, including two fires.

This recall involves Fagor 24-inch wide refrigerators sold in stainless steel and black. "Fagor" is printed on the refrigerator's front door. Model and serial numbers are located inside the refrigerator door, on the left hand side near the food storage drawers. These units were sold at Specialty Home Appliance Stores nationwide between July 2006 and May 2010 for between $2,000 and $2,500

The Consumer Product Safety Commission also recalled 37,500 portable butane stoves manufactured by Sterno Group, LLC. The recall cautioned that these units can fail to shut off posing a fire and/or burn hazard.

Dangerous hazards are still finding their way into toys despite recently improved safety standards, according to a report recently issued by the American Association for Justice.

According to the report, for years, corporations have knowingly shipped toys with hidden dangers like small parts, loose magnets, asbestos, and other toxic chemicals until outrage from parents and civil lawsuits forced regulators or manufacturers to act.
“As toys have become more sophisticated, so too have the risks associated with them,” said AAJ President Gibson Vance. “Protecting our children requires vigilance from everyone. Regulators, parents, manufacturers, and the civil justice system all play a part in keeping dangerous toys off store shelves.”

For example, earlier this year unsafe levels of cadmium were found in children’s jewelry, a toxic metal known to cause cancer and ranked as seventh on a federal list of the 275 most hazardous substances.

An investigation found the origin of the metal was likely China, where the use of the toxin had been prompted, ironically, by the recent prohibition of using lead. The U.S. imports more than 30,000 tons of toys every year from foreign markets, accounting now for 95 percent of toys sold in the U.S.

While regulators lack the resources and staff to police the market, parents, consumer groups and the civil justice system have stepped into the void.

In 2007, a popular CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit contained a powder found to contain up to five percent asbestos, potentially sending lethal asbestos into the air and into children’s lungs.

Once the hazard was known, manufacturer CBS Consumer Products refused to remove it from store shelves as Christmas approached. Rather than wait for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to negotiate a recall, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization filed a civil action to stop sales of the kit.

The entire report is printed in the extended entry portion of the blog.

Continue reading "Dangerous Toys On Shelves At Christmas" »

Today, the United States approved the biggest overhaul to the nation's food safety laws since the 1930s. By a bipartisan vote of 73-to-25 the new law would gives new authorities to the Food and Drug Administration, places new responsibilities on farmers and food companies to prevent contamination, and for the first time, sets safety standards for imported foods.

The Senate vote was one of the few pieces of legislation to receive bipartisan approval in years. The House of Representatives approved a more stringent version of the bill more than a year ago.

The legislation comes after a number of national outbreaks of food poisoning involving products such as eggs, peanuts and spinach in which thousands of people were sickened and more than a dozen died.

Leaders in the House of representatives have indicated that they would accept the Senate version of the bill. This would avoid the time consuming conference process and send the legislation to the President quickly.

Despite the strong bipartisan support among lawmakers and a coalition of major business and consumer groups, the legislation still drew sharp opposition.

Some tea party activists attacked the legislation as governmental overreaching. On his television program this month, talk show host Glenn Beck suggested that the measure was a government ruse to raise the price of meat and convert more consumers to vegetarianism.

The bill has also revealed a divide between local-food movements and major agriculture businesses. Small farmers concerned about the cost of new federal regulation initially opposed the bill and argued that since most cases of national illness are caused by large companies, small producers should be exempted from the standards.

In an effort to assuage these concerns, Sen Jon Tester, a Montana farmer, added an amendment that would exempt small farmers and those who sell directly to consumers at farmers markets and farm stands.

It is estimated that food borne illnesses affect one in four Americans and kill 5,000 each year. In addition, tainted food products have cost the food industry billions of dollars in recalls, lost sales and legal expenses.

The bill places greater responsibility on manufacturers and farmers to prevent contamination, which is a departure from the current system, which relies on government inspectors to catch contamination after the fact.

The measure also gives the FDA authority to recall food. As the law now stands, the FDA must rely on food companies to voluntarily pull products off the shelves.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a private consumer advocacy group, recently released its 25th annual study of toy safety. It reported that only a small fraction of children's toys tested for toxic substances and choking risks have been found to violate federal safety regulations.

The group’s public health advocate commented that while the study did not find perfection in toy safety, it did indicate progress.

PIRG credited a 2008 law that set stronger limits and standards for children's products for helping to make many of the products on store shelves safer for youngsters. The law was passed in the wake of a wave of recalls of lead tainted toys.

PIRG had 260 toys and other children's products from major retailers and dollar stores tested for toxic substances such as lead and antimony as well as for the risk of choking presented by small parts. Only four of the items tested violated federal safety regulations for children's toys.

In its annual "Trouble in Toyland" report on hazardous playthings, the organization focused on three hazards: lead or other metal-tainted toys, soft plastic toys that contain chemicals called phthalates, and toys with small parts that can choke young children.

Higher than permissible levels of lead or antimony were found in four toys. These are a stuffed animal, a baby book, plastic toy handcuffs and a toy gun. The toys were sold at stores including Toys "R'' Us and Family Dollar.

Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, and antimony has been linked to fertility problems in animals.

While none of the products tested violated federal limits for small parts, PIRG said several toys were still hazardous for children under 3 because the size was not that much bigger than allowed by law.

The toys identified in the group's report as potential dangers were:

—A stuffed animal monkey made by Play Pets that contained lead just slightly above the limit.

—The red handle of a baby book sold at Toys "R'' Us that contained antimony that was about twice the limit.

—The surface coating of toy plastic handcuffs sold at Toys "R'' Us that had excess antimony, many times higher than allowed.

—The surface coating of a wild ranger toy gun sold at Family Dollar with slightly higher levels of antimony than allowed.

The executive summary of the report is reproduced below.

Continue reading "Toy Safety Report Released" »

For decades, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a government agency, has gathered complaints about potentially dangerous products, from cribs to Chinese-made drywall. However, most of this information is not available to the public because of a federal law that requires a manufacturer’s approval before it can be released.

On Wednesday, the commission is scheduled to vote to create a new, publicly accessible database of safety complaints that is intended to make it easier for consumers to learn about problems with a product.

But, what seems like a common sense proposal is the subject of partisan politics among the five members of the commission.

The CPSC’s two Republican commissioners are attempting to modify the database in ways they say would be more fair to manufacturers. But, at least one Democratic commissioner and consumer advocacy allege that the modifications will significantly weaken the database.

Last week, the Republicans blocked a final vote on the database and proposed an alternative that would restrict who could register a complaint, among other things.
One of the commission’s three Democratic members, said opponents are trying to shield manufacturers from greater public scrutiny.

With Democrats outnumbering Republicans 3 to 2 on the commission, the proposal is expected to pass.

As proposed, the database would go live in March. It would allow the public access to safety complaints about various products. It would also give manufacturers the ability to post replies and, have a complaint removed if they can prove it is inaccurate.
Parents, for instance, could scroll through the database before purchasing strollers, cribs or toys to see if others have reported problems with them.

The database was authorized by Congress as part of a 2008 law intended to give the Consumer Product Safety Commission more oversight abilities.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a similar database, called SaferCar.gov where consumers can file and review safety complaints about automobiles.

Under the commission’s proposal, the public could use the database to quickly report and find complaints about unsafe products. The agency’s current rules make it difficult to obtain such information without a manufacturer’s consent and typically require filing a Freedom of Information Act request, a process that can take months, even years.

Products should meet the ordinary expectations of consumers. If a product is defective and dangerous, then the designer, manufacturer and/or seller can be held accountable for any injuries or deaths that result. There are a number of different types of product liability cases.

Defective in Design: In a design-defect case, the dangerous product is in the condition intended by the manufacturer, but the design itself is unsafe.

Defects in Manufacturing: In a manufacturing defect case, the product’s design was safe, but the way the product was actually manufactured did not comply with those designs. The result is an unsafe product.

Defective Warnings: Some products are highly useful but “unavoidably unsafe: because there is no way to manufacture the product in a safer way while retaining its useful characteristics. In those cases the manufacturers are required to warn the consumers about the potential dangers of their products. For example, many medicines are “unavoidably unsafe” because even if they work properly they produce side effects. In these cases, the manufacturer is liable whenever it fails to attach proper warnings and instructions regarding those side-effects.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP are well known for our success in handling products liability claims. In the past, our cases have involved a wide array of products, including defective factory and construction equipment, harmful drugs, defective home appliances and hazardous chemicals . In addition, we have handled medical device products liability claims. For over 40 years, we have litigated complex automobile defect, seatbelt and tread separation cases against large corporations. If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of a dangerous and defective product of any type, call us to discuss your rights.