Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products - Most Commented

Peanut Butter Danger Speads To 491 Infected Persons

Ed Normand — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:44:00 GMT

The food poisoning outbreak related to Salmonella keeps getting larger and larger. According to the the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) there are now 491 reported cases of people infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium. have been reported from 43 states and Canada. The illness is very broad with reported peanut butter related infections in the elderly and children, and infecting men and women about equally. This is a very serious infection. Already seven deaths are reported to be related to the peanut butter infection. According to the CDC:

Among the persons with confirmed, reported dates available, illnesses began between September 14, 2008 and January 8, 2009. Patients range in age from <1 to 98 years; 48% are female. Among persons with available information, 22% reported being hospitalized. Infection may have contributed to seven deaths.

Some may wonder what the legal remedies are for persons infected from the peanut butter salmonella outbreak. Essentially in Florida product liability laws govern the claims related to food poisoning ingestion from food products. Most product liability claims fall under two legal claims: negligence and strict liability. Negligence claims will require proof that the peanut butter manufacturer, supplier, seller or distributor was breached the appropriate standard of care in the storage, manufacture or transport of the peanut butter that caused the infection from salmonella contained within the peanut butter. Strict liability claims hold everyone in the chain of distribution of the infected peanut butter--manufacturers, suppliers, and even retail sellers of the product (the Walmarts, Publix etc..) for the sale of an unreasonably dangerous product. Because infected peanut butter is unreasonably dangerous and because the exact source of the contaminations are still being evaluated the strict liability product liability claim is essential to these the succesful pursuit of a peanut butter salmonella related injury or death claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Injuries on Disney Rides and Attractions: Second Quarter 2009

Ed Normand — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:05:00 GMT

Recent filings by Disney to the Florida Bureau of Fair Ride Inspection show 11 reported injuries on attractions or rides at Disney World theme parks in Florida during the second quarter of 2009. This time period includes the busy Easter and March Break holidays, where theme parks in Central Florida typically see a surge of visitors. In exchange for reporting any significant injuries (defined as needing a hospital stay for longer than 24 hours), theme parks such as Disney are exempted from state ride-safety regulations.

Disney World is comprised of four different parks: Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Hollywood Studios, and Animal Kingdom, as well as two water parks: Blizzard Beach, and Typhoon Lagoon.

The injuries are as follows:

A 7 year-old boy was injured when he fell and broke his arm while attempting to exit one of the ride vehicles at Tomorrowland Indy Speedway at Magic Kingdom. The ride is described as allowing guests to "steer and control the speed of your own racecar as you ‘lap’ up the excitement of this thrilling speedway."

A 77 year-old man became disoriented and sick and needed medical attention after riding Expedition Everest at Animal Kingdom, described as a "high-altitude, high-speed, roller coaster train ride . . . to the ‘Roof of the World,’ . . ."

Two people were injured at Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster at Hollywood Studios: the first was a 48 year-old woman who felt weak on her left side after the ride and had trouble standing, the second was a 55 year-old man who experienced chest pain after going on the ride. Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster is described as a "high-speed roller coaster for big kids, teens and adults,. . . amplified by the driving beat of a soundtrack recorded by the rock group Aerosmith specifically for [the] attraction."

A 57 year-old woman lost consciousness after going on Mission: SPACE at Epcot. Mission: SPACE is advertised as "realistically mimic[ing] what an astronaut might experience during a space flight to Mars." As part of the experience, riders experience forces of up to 2.4 Gs.

A 69 year-old woman experienced pain in her side after riding Soarin’ at Epcot, which "simulates a peaceful hang-gliding flight over the Golden State of California" as you are "lifted 40 feet into the air."

A 57 year-old man became dizzy after going on Ellen’s Energy Adventure at Epcot, a "multimedia attraction starring comedian Ellen DeGeneres", which invites guests on "a whimsical trip through time to examine the forces that fuel our lives and the universe . . ."

A 39 year-old man had a seizure while on Splash Mountain at Magic Kingdom, which allows riders to experience "twists, turns and 3 dips that lead to the grand drop down 5 stories of rushing water [that] will either get you damp or drenched."

A 64 year-old woman became disoriented and lightheaded after going on Teamboat Springs, a 1,200 feet long raft ride at Blizzard Beach Water Park that "is one of the longest family raft rides in the country, giving you a nice long, invigorating journey down the river."

A 43 year-old woman experienced stomach and chest pain after going head-first down Toboggan Racers, also at Blizzard Beach Water Park, described as "an 8-lane waterslide race on toboggan-style mats", claimed to be "an avalanche of fun!"

Finally, a 52 year-old woman became disoriented and sick after going down the Rudder Buster Storm Slide at Typhoon Lagoon, one of three "twisting, winding waterslides [that] whisk Guests down 3 stories at surprising speed."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Medical Device Product Immunity Gets Another Look

Ed Normand — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:20:00 GMT

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in Riegel v. Medtronic ruled that a manufacturer could not be held liable if its medical device was defective, even when the device is recalled, as long as the device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration before it hit the market. Medtronic recently issued a recall for malfunctioning pacemakers, the majority of which have been implanted in patients for five years or longer. Last month, the FDA notified affected patients that these defective pacemakers may cause fainting or lightheadedness, and other symptoms associated with an abnormal heart rate. In rare cases, the FDA stated that serious injury or even death could result. More than 21,000 pacemakers have been recalled, and Medtronic is recommending the removal of the affected pacemakers. Under the 2008 Supreme Court decision, Medtronic is protected against liability because the pacemaker was approved by the FDA pre-market.

Congress is now considering legislation entitled The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, introduced by Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Chair of the Health Subcommittee. The Act seeks to overturn the 2008 Supreme Court decision, and give consumers the right to hold manufacturers liable through product liability lawsuits filed at the state level. Consumers would be able to seek compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages and medical expenses resulting from injuries caused by a medical device, or caused by inadequate safety warnings. The Act would put the safety of consumers first, and eliminate the broad immunity from liability that medical device manufacturers enjoy. Manufacturers would have an obligation and an incentive to ensure the ongoing safety of their products, and not rest on their laurels after FDA approval.

The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 has the support of the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the AARP, among others. Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

If you dont like our tort system, compare it to others

Ed Normand — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:14:08 GMT

Chinese parents are angry. Not only are they limited to one child per family but their one child is at risk from dangerous products and faulty construction to name a few recent events. The Chinese government has come up with a compensation system to make amends for the deaths of children who died in collapsed schools during the recent earthquake and for children who died or who hurt from consuming contaminated baby formula. In the earthquake in May 7,000 classrooms collapsed killing thousands of children. Later many Chinese children died and thousands were hurt from Melamine contamination of baby formula. According to MSNBC the Chinese government has come up with its own tort compensation system for the product liability damages and deaths:

Compensation will be available to families of victims in both instances. The government has offered $8,823 for each killed child to the quake parents. The China Dairy Association this week confirmed a compensation plan was in the works for the milk parents. Some reports have said families could receive up to $29,000 if their children died, but the details are still unclear.

Now in our product liability system a jury of our peers would evaluate the conduct of the builders and manufacturers and then award compensation commensurate with the suffering they caused. Contrast that with the Chinese system where to contaminate baby formula with industrial chemicals to save money or to build a school with shoddy construction to save on costs is conduct that merits a mere pittance provided to the chinese families for the loss of what is usually their only child.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Melamine Contamination Spread to Eggs from China

Sandy Grinnell — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:16:46 GMT

Officials in Hong Kong have reported they have begun additional testing of eggs and meats coming from China. This is in response to the test results of 4.7 parts per million of melamine found in eggs imported to Hong Kong from China's Dalian Hanwei Enterprise Group. Hong Kong's legal limit is 2.5 parts per million for food products to be consumed by humans. It was thought the melamine in the eggs came from contaminated feed.

Chinese food production companies are under scrutiny after 3,600 Chinese children have become ill and three infants have died from melamine tainted milk.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Teen Decapitated by Coaster at Six Flags Georgia

Mike Damaso — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:37:10 GMT

A 17-year-old from South Carolina was decapitated at Six Flags in Georgia on Saturday when a roller coaster traveling at full speed struck him in the head after he entered a restricted area. It is uncertain why the teen jumped two 6-foot fences and passed by warning signs stating the area was restricted, off-limits, and dangerous. Witness reports indicate the teen may have been in the area to retrieve a hat he lost while in the ride.

The ride was shut down for the remainder of the day out of respect for the teen's family. Another teen had entered the area as well but was not injured. No one on the ride was injured. The teen victim was at the park with his parents with a church group from Springfield, South Carolina.

In 2002, a groundskeeper was killed when he entered the restricted area and was struck by the hanging leg of a ride passenger. The ride was closed, OSHA inspected the ride, and the federal organization deemed the ride safe for passengers.

In 2007, a teen's legs were severed when a cable snapped on the Superman Tower of Power at Six Flags Kentucky. This injury resulted in several surgeries to re-attach the girls right foot and amputate part of her left leg. The girl's family is seeking civil justice.

Full Article

Theme Park and Amusement Park injuries occur every year at parks across the country. If you or someone you know suffer an amusement park related injury, it is critical that legal advice is obtained from an attorney with experience in handling such cases. It is imperative that you are made aware of your rights. Theme park injury cases often have a variety of legal issues. The parks owe a duty of care to the visitors of the park and if the conduct of the park, or park employees, falls below that duty, the park could be held responsible for injuries caused by their acts or failures. Additionally, many ride cases involve considering whether the designer or manufacturer of the ride has any liabity for the injury caused by the ride. Many times, this is a separate entity from the park itself. They may be other people or companies that are responsible for inspecting and maintaining the ride. Because there is only a limited period of time to bring a case for a theme park related injury, and it may take some time to determine what people and companies are involved and responsible, it is critical that a lawyer is consulted immediately.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Damaso

Taser and Excited Delirium-A Controversy that Continues

Staff Writer — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:00:00 GMT

The relationship between excited delirium and taser stun gun use is a controversial topic. Excited delirium is a medical condition that is hotly debated in the medical and law enforcement communities. Taser International has used the condition to argue that its stun gun did not cause people's death but rather death was brought on by this state of excited delirium. The company has been somewhat successful in court employing this argument. Excited delirium manifests itself in extreme agitation and aggressive, violent behavior. The real question remains: What is the proper and safe use of the taser stun gun weapon?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Another Ford Truck Recall

Joe Saunders — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:57:20 GMT

In the largest vehicle in history, Ford has announced that it will be forced to recall 1.2 million of its trucks, SUVs, and vans due to a faulty speed deactivation switch. The models affected include: 1994-2002 F-250, F-350, F-450, and F-550, 2000-02 Ford Excursion SUVs, 1994-96 Econoline vans and Mountaineers. This latest recall comes in the wake of mounting troubles for the US automaker.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

Are Manufacturers Liable If I am Injured by Their Product?

Sandy Grinnell — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:23:18 GMT

Injured by a piece of equipment or product you were recently using? Then you might be eligible to bring a product liability suit against the manufacturer, supplier, or retailer depending on where you got the product. Product liability is the area of law that holds these businesses liable for the injuries that their products cause to the public. Most product liability cases are based of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and consumer protection claims. These laws vary from state to state and from claim to claim. There are three major types of product liability claims: a manufacturing defect, a design defect, and a failure to warn or a marketing defect.

Strict Liability focuses on the product itself. Under this theory the manufacturer is liable if the product causes injury regardless of whether the product itself was defective. The courts look for facts in individual strict liability cases which characterize warranty from the manufacturer to the consumer, be it an expressed or implied warranty. Expressed warranties are those which are noted on the product during purchase whereas implied warranties are those which are common to all products in that category. Strict liability, unlike negligence, does not require the manufacturer itself to be negligent in production. In negligence the plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer or distributor fell below a standard of care. However strict liability focuses only on the product itself.

States are also enacting consumer protection statutes for specific remedies in regards to product defects. Statutory remedies are enacted for products that do not necessarily cause injury but simply are defective or unusable but still cause an economic loss. This only allows the consumer to recover for the economic loss of the product but no damages to their person.

No consumer should ever be injured by a product that a manufacturer holds out to be safe for public use. If you or anyone you know has been injured from a recent purchase or product they were using, please don’t hesitate to contact someone for legal representation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Theme Park Injury Caught on Video

Ed Normand — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:00:00 GMT

Knott’s Berry Farm in Buena Park, California, billed as "America’s 1st Theme Park" was the site of another ride accident in mid-September, 2009. Riders were struck with debris and two passengers were injured, after a cable on the ride snapped. Luckily, no one else was injured during the accident. Incredibly, the entire ordeal was caught on video! A 12-year-old boy suffered lacerations on his leg, and an adult male complained of back pain afterwards. In the video, you can clearly see the point in the video where the cable breaks, and the ride starts going backwards. The fear and confusion on the eyes of the riders is evident, especially once smoke starts emanating from underneath the ride. The riders begin to panic at the end of the video, as they realize they are strapped into the ride, and unable to get out. The video, posted on Youtube, provides an eye-opening insight as to what happens when a ride malfunctions.

www.youtube.com/watchhttp://www.youtube.com/v/6EGHHjN0bQs&hl=en&fs=1&"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true">http://www.youtube.com/v/6EGHHjN0bQs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand