Personal Injury Law Blogs

What is Market Share Liability?

The legal concept of market share liability was created more than 30 years ago through the famous ruling by the 1980 California Supreme Court in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. It provides for plaintiffs in a suit against a manufacturer of a product, where others may also manufacture the same or similar product, to receive proportionate compensation from all parties that are jointly and individually liable for any damages caused.

To bring a cause of action against a defendant who caused harm to a plaintiff, the plaintiff need not be able to prove which of the manufacturers produced the product if such information is unknown. This was indeed the case in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories; the plaintiff was a victim of a drug taken by her mother, causing her to contract cancer, although she could not identify the manufacturer. The concept is closely akin to that of enterprise liability, which holds that companies engaged in an industry-wide practice may be held liable if the practice is found to do harm.

Why Does the Need for Market Share Liability Exist?

Market share liability provides individuals with a tool to hold accountable corporations that manufacture products that cause harm and damages. This removes an element of burden of proof from the plaintiff. It places a proportionate share of liability on each of the parties who may be adjudicated as having been liable for harm.

As an example, companies A, B, and C are jointly and individually involved in the manufacture, marketing, promotion, and sale of a drug found to cause cancer. A plaintiff brings an action before a court, but is unable to determine which of the three companies actually manufactured the product. If the court finds sufficient evidence to support the claim of the plaintiff that all three companies benefitted in equal or unequal proportions from the sale of the drug, each company would be found proportionately liable.

Recent Cases and Future Market Share Liability

In its 30-year history since the Sindell decision, plaintiffs have attempted to apply the findings of the court to other products that have multiple defendants and are deemed to cause the same harm as that which was the basis of the Sindell case (a synthetic female estrogen hormone named diethylstilbesterol, or DES, that has been linked to cervical cancer and birth defects). These attempts to bring suit against the manufacturers of asbestos, cigarettes, products containing benzene, and breast implants have not had the same level of success with the courts as the Sindell case.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has arguably done the most to advance the context in which market share liability should be viewed with regards to a tort action brought against a manufacturer. In 1989 (Shackil v. Lederle Labs, 116 N.J. 155, 168), the court declined to apply the concept to a vaccine case and in another case from 1994 (Cecil Becker v. Baron Brothers, 138 N.J. 145, 160), setting forth the following forecast:

“… to apply the market share liability theory requires a product that is produced by multiple defendants that is uniformly similar and where the plaintiff has been exposed to but one or some of them, and through circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control, it cannot be determined which manufacturer supplied the product that injured the plaintiff.”

Byline
Oliver Adams is a freelance writer based in Athens, Georgia who focuses on Employee Discrimination, Product Liability, the Uniform Commercial Code, Contract Law, Banking Law and other areas as well.

Common Latin Terms Used in Law

It used to be that before you considered a career in law, you needed to take a year of Latin to understand and appreciate different terms and expressions like “caveat emptor” (“let the buyer beware”). There are many phrases commonly used in the practice of law that many of us have heard, especially if we have ever watched a crime drama featuring the court room on television. Some of the more common phrases are provided below with a short definition and a discussion of how each is used.

De Facto

“De facto” is Latin for “from the fact.” This legal term is a reference to what is believed to be true, through practice, as opposed to what is written in the law. For example, de facto segregation in public schools existed in the southern United States well after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that banned such practices.

Et Alia or Et Al.

The Latin phrase “et alia,” often seen abbreviated as et al., is a reference to a group of individuals (“and others”). A lawsuit brought against several individuals together may reference the group as John Doe, et al. versus…

Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus means, literally, “have the body present.” This term is used in connection with what is known as a writ of habeas corpus, requiring a person’s presence, typically as it relates to a legal proceeding or court of law. The concept evolved from English Parliamentary law with origins in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679.

Mea Culpa

“Mea culpa” is a Latin phrase for “my fault.” A mea culpa is an admission of guilt or fault made by an individual.

Mens Rea

The Latin term “mens rea” is the difference between an intentional act and an unintentional act of murder. First-degree murder carries with it the element of mens rea, or the intent to commit murder through planning and forethought. A lesser crime such as manslaughter, however, is absent mens rea, or a premeditated state of mind to commit the act of murder, although the resulting act is similar to first-degree murder. However, if you are involved in a case of self-defense, it is very important that you have an legal expert like a lawyer in self-defense in nevada to stand by your side in court who will aggressively defend your self-defense case.

Per Se

“By itself” or “on its own” is the meaning associated with the Latin term “per se.” In reviewing evidence associated with a trial, a particular piece of evidence, per se, may not be an indication of guilt or innocence. However, in connection with other pieces of evidence introduced in a legal proceeding, it may provide an important evidentiary link.

Pro Bono

The legal term “pro bono” is commonly used when legal services are rendered for free, usually to an indigent person. The Latin term pro bono means “for the good.”

Pro Se

“Pro se” is Latin for a person who chooses to represent themselves in a legal proceeding (“for oneself; on behalf of oneself”). The right to counsel is provided for in the U.S. Constitution by the Sixth Amendment. The court clarified this right in Faretta v. California to permit individuals to represent themselves.

Quid Pro Quo

This Latin phrase refers to an exchange of value between parties to enter into a contract. It is taken to mean, literally, “this for that.”

Subpoena

“Under penalty” is the meaning associated with the Latin term “subpoena.” A subpoena is typically a written summons or order to appear that has attached with it penalties for failure to appear or respond.

Byline

Aaron Wilmington writes on a variety of legal issues such as Casino Slip and Fall accidents, Legal Terminology, Contract Law, Commercial Law and other areas as well.

The Injuries Sustained from Tattoos and How to Avoid Them

There are a variety of ways in which people can express their unique character, and getting a tattoo is a route that many individuals choose to accomplish this end. People opt for tattoos that are as simple as their child’s name to as complex as full body artwork. Unfortunately, tattoos also present an inherent risk due to the procedures necessary to accomplish them. Because of this, it’s vital for anyone considering a tattoo to understand ways to avoid serious injuries.

Types of Tattoo Injuries

Unfortunately, there are several injuries that an individual can sustain if their tattoo artist doesn’t do their job right. Any of these injuries can lead to serious health issues.

  • Allergic Reactions: Some tattoo studios will use subpar ink in an effort to cut down on costs. When this occurs, some of their clients may suffer severe allergic reactions.
  • Dangerous Infections: Tattoo artists are literally repeatedly breaking the skin to insert tattoo ink. This means that if the studio doesn’t use hygienic methods or, even worse, reuses certain equipment, the risk of potentially fatal infections exists. Serious diseases, such as HIV, can also be transmitted due to reusing equipment.
  • Inflamed Lymph Nodes: There is the chance that large particles of ink pigment may migrate and accumulate in a person’s lymph nodes. This can cause painful inflammation.

Avoiding Injuries

Luckily, there are several ways in which an individual can minimize the chance that they’ll suffer serious injuries after getting body work done. In fact, some of them don’t even involve tattoo parlors.

1. Stay Professional: Never get “at-home” tattoos. There is no regulation on this activity, and in all likelihood, the equipment used will not be sterile and will probably have been used before.

2. Remain Vigilant at Parlor: Even after choosing a tattoo studio, it’s important to remain vigilant. The artist should ask several health related questions to ensure a person can safely get a tattoo. If they don’t, it might be best to move on.

3. Opt for Less Permanence: One thing about tattoos: they’re usually permanent. Of course, there are other alternatives, such as long-lasting temporary tattoos and fake tattoo skin, which provide the same effect of a tattoo without the inherent dangers. Many companies actually work directly with designers to create these images, so a person can get a less invasive tattoo in just about any design that they want.

What to do After an Injury

Tattoo artists and studios try to make it very difficult for anyone to hold them liable for their mistakes. This is usually why they have clients sign ‘release of liability’ forms before performing any work. The first thing a person should do when they think they’ve been injured by a tattoo artist, however, is visit a doctor. Even if the individual has some legal recourse, it will mean nothing if a doctor doesn’t attest to the fact that a serious problem occurred due to the tattoo.

It’s also important to contact an attorney at this point. Many people believe that the forms they signed prior to getting tattooed precludes them from recovering any medical bills or other recompense due to injury, but this isn’t always the case. An experienced attorney may be able to show that the actions performed by the tattoo artist constituted reckless negligence, and in these cases, a victim may be able to receive compensation.

Tattoos allow people to express themselves in ways unlike any other, and this is likely why the practice has existed across different cultures and civilizations for hundreds of years. It remains important, however, to consider safety before having any body work done. From picking out the best artist in town to opting for a safer route than traditional tattoos, it is possible to minimize one’s risk of an injury. Luckily, even in the event of an injury, the law may allow a person to recover financial compensation for their losses.

Researcher Lisa Coleman shares what some dangers are that can accompany a needle when obtaining a permanent ink tattoo, and the legal recourse someone might have if injured acquiring one. She encourages using alternate options before a final decision is made. Tattoo You is an online temporary tattoo business that meets up with designers to make any variety of tattoo, and specializes in selling fake tattoo skin and long-lasting temporary tattoos.

 

Injured Superhero? Find Out How Much You Could Claim

It’s hard for the average person to fully understand the processes behind it, but there is something about superheroes that just grabs our attention and holds onto it for dear life. From Spider-Man to Thor and every hero from every galaxy in between, these moralistic super humans (or demigods, in some instances) maintain a firm grip onto the admiration of millions.

It’s important to note, however, that these individuals can feel pain too. In many instances, in fact, our superheroes could be entitled to receive compensation for their injuries.

What Superheroes Could Stand to Recover

While it seems silly that superheroes would ever think to file personal injury claims after their life-changing accidents, it’s important to remember that being a superhero isn’t all fun and games. Just think of the Thing; forced to live out the rest of his life as a rock monster. And who can forget Daredevil’s horrific accident that initially led to his blindness? No; the superhero life isn’t always one of perfection. Luckily, they could recover compensation for the difficulties that they face.

In fact, a list was recently released showing just how much certain superheroes stood to recover for their accidents. When Peter Parker got bit by the radioactive spider, he could’ve easily recovered $126,250. Had Daredevil brought forward a suit, there’s no doubt that he could have pulled in an easy $438,650. Even the Fantastic 4, though it was the Thing who got the worst of it, could’ve gotten over $1.2 million for their outer space based accident.

How Injury Compensation is Calculated

To understand how the aforementioned amounts were reached, it’s important to recognize what the superheroes were being compensated for. After these accidents, the at-fault party would’ve had to reimburse these individuals for medical costs, lost income, loss of property, permanent disfigurements and disabilities and even emotional damages. Luckily, there is an easy calculation that insurers use to come up with their initial settlement offer.

Claims adjusters will first look at all medical expenses related to a person’s injury. Based on the seriousness of the injury, the insurance company will decide upon a “multiplier.” This number, usually ranging from 1.5 to 5, will be multiplied by the person’s medical expenses to come up with a new monetary figure. This figure is then added to the individual’s lost income from the injury to provide a starting figure for the company to work with.

Though the typical multiplier only goes up to 5, more serious injuries can result in multipliers up to 10. This means that, in the case of the Fantastic 4, it’s likely that their combined medical bills cost $102,000. This is because the injuries they suffered were obviously serious, so it’s very likely that a multiplier of 10 was used. Since they were able to continue with their work, however, their income losses were likely minimal.

What about Mere Mortals?

Luckily for those who can’t travel between parallel dimensions or soar over the skyline of New York City via web slinging, compensation laws weren’t created for superheroes. This is actually extremely beneficial considering the fact that regular people don’t end up with awesome abilities after being injured through other people’s negligence.

In reality, injury attorney’s such as those at www.tennandtenn.com, will explain that when a person is injured on the job, in the car or anywhere else, they may end up facing excessive medical bills, pain and suffering, lost time at work and various levels of property damage. The calculation described above will create a base amount that an accident victim will likely be offered. Having an attorney on their side is usually beneficial since insurers will probably only offer the bare minimum.

Everyone feels pain, and even our greatest superheroes have shown that they aren’t invulnerable. Just think of when Lex Luther stabbed Superman with kryptonite in “Superman Returns”. Fortunately, these heroes, if they so chose, could likely recover substantial compensation for the accidents that created them. Luckily for mortals, however, there’s no requirement of being a superhero to recover compensation for injuries suffered due to the negligence of others. 

As a former law blog editor, Georgina Clatworthy has written many articles relating to personal injury and accident claims, although mostly for the benefit of mere mortals! Whether you are a mortal or a superhero, the lawyers at www.tennandtenn.com can advance your claim, helping you receive the damages you deserve.

Chronic Back Pain A Year After: Is There Recourse?

Back injuries have historically proven to present lifelong problems for the injured individual. Personal activity of any type can be severely hampered. The problem with back injuries is that they take a long time to manifest in many cases, as a seemingly minor injury can develop into a full disability over time. Filing a legal claim for an injury resulting from a negligent party can be difficult if not done on a timely basis, as all states have a statute of limitations on filing personal injury claims stemming from an accident. The statute expires in North Carolina after 10 years in all cases and after three years in most personal injury cases.

Did the Injured Party Seek Medical Attention?

Anyone who was treated at a certified medical facility for injuries sustained in an accident will have a diagnosis record and a billing record. The diagnosis and prognosis serve as documented evidence that the injury occurred in reasonable association with the accident. This documentation can also include an ambulance record and the emergency medical personnel assessment of immediate injury. If the back injury was reported immediately following the accident, then the documentation is sufficient to present in court by a personal injury lawyer North Carolina based or in your state of residence. Doctors are considered as expert witnesses in most court cases and they are the best intermediate references. Actually, their services are a significant portion of the compensatory claims.

Were Other Individuals Injured?

This is especially important in automobile accident personal injury claims. If other persons occupied the vehicle also, the injuries could be similar. Additionally, the other parties involved in the accident can serve as witnesses that the injury was suffered and possibly missed in treatment. This is a common occurrence in a major accident where some individuals suffer injuries that do not manifest until later. A stressed medical staff can easily overlook a detail that worsens over time.

Has a Medical Claim Been Settled?

Insurance companies often act quickly in a personal injury case if they think they can convince the injured party to avoid hiring an attorney while offering much lower payouts in the process. The injured novice must not attempt to handle a claim alone. All insurance companies will seek a permanent full release from further damage claims in any settlement, and all personal injury attorneys expect this requirement from the insurance company. Attorneys always advise against this action. Remember that the insurance company has no obligation to the patient until the court orders coverage. Quick insurance company action is suspicious, and if a full release has already been signed it is fully legally enforceable.

Anyone experiencing a nagging and worsening back injury should always seek counsel from an experienced and effective legal representative who will be honest in an assessment of the case. The time delay can clearly present a problem and offer a defense position for the respondent. It is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the injury was actually a result of the accident in question, and evidence can erode over time. It is important to seek medical treatment as soon as possible before retaining an attorney to ensure that the possibility for a claim still legally exists. If regular medication doesn’t help with your chronic pain, consider switching to 10mg delta 8 gummies by fresh bros for pain relief.

 
Will Powell is a freelance writer who seeks to provide answers to common questions relating to back pain injuries and the law. Auger & Auger Attorneys at Law is a personal injury lawyer North Carolina based firm which can help those who suffer from chronic pain back injuries resulting from negligence or wrongdoing.

Construction firm fined after engineer killed by falling steel mast

An East London firm has been heavily fined by the Peterborough Crown Court after one of its employees was crushed by a falling metal mast at its site in Cambridgeshire.

Mr Nigel Sewell, 57, was working as a construction engineer at Universal Building Supply Ltd’s site in Wireless Station Park, Kneesworth, when the accident occurred on 19 September 2011. Mr Sewell was one quarter of a four-man team who were assembling a tri-mast at the rear of the site. This entailed the use of construction equipment in order to create the mast, including three mast sections in triangular formation. Two of the three masts had apparently been lowered into place when the accident occurred but the second mast wasn’t sitting correctly so Mr Sewell and a colleague attempted to force the mast into place using a sledge hammer and a crowbar. However, this didn’t work so a mechanical vehicle was used to push the mast into place. As he did so, both of the masts came away from their moorings and fell on Mr Sewell, crushing and killing him. He was pronounced death at the scene by medical practitioners.

The Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) were notified of the accident and conducted an investigation into its circumstances. This investigation found that there had been numerous health and safety violations by Universal Builders Supply Ltd, including a failure to plan the work properly, a failure to supervise the work properly and that there had been no necessary separation of vehicles from the assembly process. It was therefore recommended that a prosecution be undertaken against Universal Builders.

This prosecution took place over the space of a week at Peterborough Crown Court, with the last day occurring on 4 September 2013. Universal Builders Supply Ltd had been found guilty of three offences of breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was therefore fined a total of £125,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £40,000.

It is currently unknown as to whether Mr Sewell’s family will claim personal injury for any financial losses they have suffered as a result of his death.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the health and safety aspects of the case: “Employers have strict obligations to comply with health and safety legislation in the United Kingdom, and in order to avoid violating the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 businesses must take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that neither their employees nor third parties have their health, safety and/or welfare endangered by working practices.”

Mr Graham Tompkins, an HSE Inspector, said: “This tragic death could have been prevented had simple safety measures been thought through and put in place. Universal Builders Supply Ltd failed to plan the work properly, to provide appropriate instruction and to ensure there was competent supervision of the operation.”

Redmans Solicitors are Hammersmith employment solicitors and settlement agreement solicitors

Kent company ordered to pay out over £180,000 after death of worker on the job

A Kent company has been ordered to pay out over £180,000 in costs and fines after a worker was killed whilst delivering building materials to a domestic address in November 2006.

Mr Brian Peek, 57, of Ashford address, was working for Moores Turf & Top Soil Limited as a delivery driver when the accident occurred on 20 November 2006. At the time of the accident he was supervising the unloading of bags of hardcore and aggregates at a domestic address, which entailed using a small crane and bucket shell on the lorry to grab the bags and lower them onto the ground. However, as Mr Peek unloaded the last bag he leaned over the back of the lorry to check its delivery and the crane swung round, trapping his neck. The injuries he sustained were fatal and he was pronounced dead by medical practitioners at the scene of the accident. If someone you know have experienced this kind of situation, it it important to seek the help of a workers compensation lawyer for legal advice.

The Health and Safety Executive was subsequently notified of the accident and an investigation was commenced. This investigation found that the company was responsible for potential breaches of health and safety regulations, such as the fact that the equipment supplied to Mr Peek was in a poor state of repair and that the system of work used by the company’s employees to unload the bags was unsafe. The investigation also found that if more suitable equipment had been used by the firm then the incident could have been prevented and that the firm actually did have more appropriate equipment that could have been used in the circumstances. A prosecution into Moores Turf & Top Soil Limited for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The case came before the Canterbury Crown Court on 9 September 2013. The company pleaded guilty to breaches of s.2(1) and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc and it was fined £85,000 and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of a further £97,791, to bring the total payable to over £180,000.

There does not appear to have been any comment from the firm’s criminal defence solicitors after the hearing – a point which in itself, though, is not unusual.

HSE Principal Inspector Mr Mike Walters stated: “Brian Peek’s tragic death could and should have been prevented. The lifting equipment on the lorry was badly maintained and simply wasn’t safe for use. It was also unnecessary because the firm had better equipment more suited to the job, which could have been used instead.”

Chris Hadrill, a solicitor at Redmans, commented: “Employers have an obligation to comply with health and safety regulations such as the Health and Safety at Work etc Act  1974 so far as is reasonably practicable in order to minimize the risk to its employees’ and visitors’ health, welfare and wellbeing. The Crown Court clearly felt in this instance that Mr Peek’s employer had failed to take those reasonably steps and therefore failed in its duty to its employees.”

Redmans Solicitors are Hounslow employment solicitors and unfair dismissal solicitors based in London

Fraudulent personal injury claim lands Liverpool men in jail

Two men have been jailed after they attempted to defraud a leading insurer of almost £77,000 by faking a car crash.

Mr Kenneth Nash and Mr Darren Gallimore dreamed up the scam in X and put it into effect in March 2011, when Mr Nash told his insurer that his car had crashed into the rear of Mr Gallimore’s car in Old Courthouse Road, Bromborough. The insurer started to process the two mens claims for damage to their cars and Mr Gallimore also submitted a claim for personal injury based upon injuries which he said he had received in the car crash. Other members of the two fraudsters’ families also submitted claims for personal injury based premised upon whiplash injuries which they said they had sustained in the accident.

The fraud was only discovered after a search of social media sites found that Mr Nash and Mr Gallimore were friends. The police were notified of the potential fraud and a criminal investigation was started into the matter. This criminal investigation by the police recommended that Mr Nash, Mr Gallimore and a number of other people who had submitted claims relating to the fraud be prosecuted on counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.

The case came to the Liverpool Crown Court last week. The court heard that the insurer had discovered that the two men were friends during a cursory check of social media sites and that suspicions that the men had potentially faked the accident were bolstered when it was found by forensic examiners that damage to the cars was inconsistent with the event that both men said had happened. Both Mr Nash and Mr Gallimore pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation and they were each jailed for a period of 12 months. Four other family members who were also charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation received suspended sentences, community service and supervision orders.

Judge Mark Brown told the two men: “You have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. This is commonly known as a ‘crash-for-cash’ or whiplash case in which you made fraudulent claims for compensation. [The accident] was completely bogus. If the crash ever occurred, it was a set-up” and that he was “satisfied both of you had a leading role in this scam. I’m satisfied this was a carefully thought through scam. You knew the clear consequences, should you be detected.”

Marc Hadrill, a personal injury solicitor at Redmans, commented: “Fraud relating to personal injury cases is an extremely serious matter for three reasons – firstly, what these men engaged in was a serious criminal offence; secondly, that it was a serious abuse of court process on their party; and, thirdly, fraudulent personal injury claims besmirch the names of all those persons who are seriously injured, claim personal injury and try to obtain some form of redress through the court system.”

Redmans Solicitors are Hammersmith employment solicitors and personal injury solicitors who specialise in settlement agreement advice

An Introduction of Palsgraf

The scene is New York City, 1928. A woman named Helen Palsgraf is standing on the train platform waiting to catch a ride to Rockaway Beach. Another train arrives, and two men run past her to catch it. One gets aboard, but the other has trouble because he is carrying a small unmarked box wrapped in newspaper. When he is helped aboard by two platform guards, one aboard the train already and the other on the platform, he drops the package. The package is full of fireworks, which go off and damage some scales at the other end of the platform. These scales injure Mrs. Palsgraf, who sues the railroad company for negligence in her injury.

The Opinion of the Court

The New York Court of Appeals found that there was no proof of negligence on the part of the railroad as the employees had not ignored Mrs. Palsgraf. Instead, they noticed that she was standing far enough away that, without being aware of the contents of the package, they and their actions should have caused her no harm. The majority conclusion written by Cheif Justice Cardozo states, “In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have averted or avoided the injury.”

Essentially it was decided that negligence must be defined as intentional and willful ignorance of a visible risk. The majority opinion also states that evidence of “negligence in the air, so to speak,” is not sufficient to find a defendant guilty.

There was a dissenting opinion, as well, written by Justice Andrews. This opinion observes that the negligence was not in the injury of Mrs. Palsgraf but in the knocking of the unmarked package from the intending boarder’s hand. This dissenting opinion brought into play the concept that makes this case so notable: proximate cause.

Justice Andrews felt that, before acting to help the man aboard the train, the employee should have considered what their actions could do to anyone else in the train station. He felt that the employee was thoroughly responsible for the chain of events that led to the plaintiff’s injury, and the company could be held accountable. As he states, “Unreasonable risk being taken, its consequences are not confined to those who might probably be hurt.” Nevertheless, it was a 4-3 decision against the plaintiff.

Consequences of the Case

This case is in keeping with the other cases of this sort in its time. However, more recently, companies have been held accountable for less and less predictable events that were decided using Justice Andrew’s proximate cause. In modern society, the repercussions of any action can be considered the fault of the person performing said action, whether the consequence was foreseeable or not.

For examples of other cases with similar bases, see Martin v. Herzog, Paul v. Consol. Fireworks Co., Adams v. Bullock, Parrott v. Wells-Fargo Co., Munsey v. Webb, Condran v. Park & Tilford, or Robert v. U.S.E.F. Corp. The idea of proximate cause is now considered important enough that this case is commonly studied by first-year law students as an excellent example and definition for the term.

Byline

Mario Flores is a legal specialist concentrating on Criminal Defense, DUI, Personal Injury, Civil Procedure and other critical areas of law.

Baby Safety and Faulty Equipment: What does the Law Say?

Parents must always be on guard when it comes to purchasing and using baby furniture and accessories. Even though there are many guidelines and laws in place to ensure that these products do not harm your baby when used, injures are still occurring. In fact, a recent study released by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) shows that there has been an increase in infant injures related to faulty products in the last five years.

For instance, a recent recall of the Baby Einstein Jumper recently took place. This toy, designed for stationary use and as a way to keep your young baby entertained, was pulled from the market after being associated with over 100 injuries. These injuries included skull fractures, broken bones and chipped teeth. It has been determined that the injuries are a result of a design flaw.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is a federal government agency that regulates product safety for all consumers. However, the CPSC has very strict guidelines for products intended for use by babies and small children. The CPSC regulates everything from choking hazards to the type of paint and chemical compounds that can be used on or near toys when they are manufactured.

Companies that comply with all of these regulations can carry a CPSC seal on their packaging. All toys manufactured in the United States must meet these guidelines.

It should be noted that toys and other baby products manufactured outside of the U.S. are not subjected to these same regulations unless they want to carry the CPSC seal. This also applies to American companies that manufacture products outside of the U.S. and bring them back here to sell.

Selecting Safe Toys, Furniture and Other Baby Items

Parents must take time and research products that they intend to buy for their children. The CPSCC website has a current list of products that have been recalled so that consumers can make wiser purchasing decisions.

Additionally, if you are out shopping and decide to buy an item, make sure that you look for the safety seal on the packaging. This will tell you what products meet government safety standards.

Stay with name brands instead of cheaper imports. For instance, the Bright Starts Ingenuity product line is one of the highest rated baby accessory companies out there. Their play yards and other interactive toys exceed safety standards and have been praised by many parents. Other, similar products, which do not carry these safety standards, can be harmful to your baby.

When Your Baby Has Been Injured

If your baby has been injured by any type of baby equipment or accessory that is obviously a design flaw or manufacturing issue, you should seek legal advice from a personal injury attorney. Your baby may be entitled to compensation for their injuries, and an attorney can help determine if you have a product liability case against the makers of the product that injured your baby. Your actions will also help ensure that these dangerous products are removed from the market, keeping them from further injuring other children.

As a mother to 4, Lisa Coleman understands the importance of being sure the baby equipment we choose to buy and use for our little ones is made with quality, up to code and safe to prevent possible injuries. She has used Bright Starts’ Ingenuity product line herself, and can assert to the quality and safe environment it provides an infant, from their washable play yards to their baby play mats and gyms.