Articles Posted in Product Liability

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

Since this May, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that Hydroxycut product users could suffer from adverse liver disease, numerous lawsuits have been filed around the country, including several in the Chicago area.

On May 1, 2009, the FDA announced that it had been made aware of 23 reports of adverse liver effects that occurred in the course of normal Hydroxycut usage. The reports included injuries that ranged from general liver damage, the need for a liver transplant, and to death. At that time the FDA warned consumers to immediately cease using Hydroxycut products.

Signs and symptoms of liver damage from Hydroxycut usage can include fatigue, malaise/ tiredness, loss of appetite, nausea, jaundice, blurry vision, abdominal itching, abdominal pain, and/or dark colored urine. Hydroxycut has also been known to cause drug-induced hepatitis and liver failure.

In response to the FDA’s warning, Iovate, the owner and distributor of Hydroxycut products, agreed to recall its remaining product from store shelves. Hydroxycut was generally sold throughout the United States and Illinois at stores such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS Pharmacy, among others.

Continue reading

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

When the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was enacted in 2006 it provided protection to firearm manufactures from the majority of lawsuits being brought by victims of a shooting. Under the Act shooting victims were barred from suing firearm manufacturers in both federal and state courts under a wide range of circumstances.

However, the PLCAA does permit product liability lawsuits if the injury was caused by “a defect in design or manufacturer of the product.” The statute also goes on to state that if the circumstances involve “a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage.”
An Illinois case asked the Illinois Supreme Court to clarify the circumstances under which PLCAA applies. The Illinois product liability lawsuit against Beretta USA Corp. involved a 13-year-old who had been adjudicated delinquent for accidentally killing his friend with a Beretta semiautomatic because he mistakenly believed that removing the clip of bullets completely unloaded the handgun.

Continue reading