Blog

Reports are warning that movable soccer goals are potentially dangerous products that can cause injury or even death to young players. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has been warning parents about the risks associated with moveable soccer goals for years. Soccer goals that are not anchored to the ground can easily fall over and injure nearby children and adults alike. Some injuries result from a person climbing on the goal or hanging from the crossbar, but even a strong gust of wind can cause the goal to fall. A report by the CPSC stated that, from 1998 to 2008, soccer goal tip-overs resulted in the death of at least eight children. Approximately 2,000 children under the age of 16 were taken to the emergency room due to injuries from unanchored goals. According to Anchored for Safety, a soccer goal safety advocacy group, nearly 40 children have been killed and more than 55 injured due to the structural failures of movable soccer goals since the late 1970s. Their website reported that a 9-year-old boy from Arkansas was killed earlier this year after a soccer goal fell on top of him. The CPSC recommends that movable soccer goals be securely anchored at all times and only be used on level ground. Coaches are recommended to instruct their young players on the dangers of climbing on soccer goals and are prohibited from climbing on the goal’s frame and net. It is also recommended that moveable soccer goal manufacturers provide counterweights for the goals. These counterweights should be used even when the goals are not in use. Anchoring the goal to nearby fence posts or other strong fixtures also helps to prevent accidents and serious injuries. Source: ConsumerReports.org, “Soccer goals need to be anchored,” Desiree Ferenczi, 3/14/2011

This U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency responsible for recalling defective or dangerous products, announced yet another recall of drop-side cribs yesterday. The CPSC believes the SafetyCraft brand full size and portable drop-side cribs manufactured and distributed by Generation 2 Worldwide contain defective parts identical to the Generation 2 Worldwide ChildEsigns brand cribs recalled about one year ago. The CPSC is concerned that a SafetyCraft crib’s plastic drop-side hardware can break. This can cause the drop side of the crib to detach from the crib. When the side detaches, an infant or toddler can become wedged or trapped in the space that is created. There have been three reported suffocation deaths and 20 reported drop side incidents involving the plastic hardware on the ChildEsigns cribs that contain plastic hardware nearly identical to the plastic hardware contained in the Generation 2 Worldwide SafetyCraft cribs. The CPSC is urging anyone who has one of the cribs to stop using it immediately. The agency cautions against trying to fix the cribs. Generation 2 Worldwide went out of business in 2005. The rights to the “SafetyCraft” brand name were sold to Foundations Children’s Products, and the CPSC has noted SafetyCraft cribs made by Foundations Children’s Products are not a part of the recall. The cribs made by Foundations Children’s Products can be identified by the word “Foundations” printed on the mattress support assembly instructions label under the crib mattress. Because the original manufacturer has gone out of business, the CPSC has limited information about where the Generation 2 Worldwide SafetyCraft drop-side cribs were sold and the CPSC cannot identify any major retailers that sold the cribs. The name “SafetyCraft” appears on a label attached to the crib’s headboard or footboard and the product labels will identify the place of manufacture as Indonesia or Dothan, Alabama. The CPSC believes the dangerous cribs are being used in homes as well as childcare facilities. Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, ” WARNING: Generation 2 Worldwide “SafetyCraft” Brand Drop-Side Cribs Pose Risks of Strangulation, Suffocation,” 2/3/2011

Medical device manufacturers are held to a high standard. The products they produce are expected to work properly. When their products are defective or fail, the results can be catastrophic to patients. This week, the U.S. Department of Justice joined a civil lawsuit against Boston Scientific Corporation and Guidant, one of its subsidiaries, alleging the company wrongfully sold faulty medical devices to the Medicare program. The government is intervening in a previously filed suit by a patient who was implanted with a Guidant implantable defibrillator device in 2002. Implantable defibrillators are battery-powered devices implanted in patients who are at risk for sudden death from heart problems. In the event a patient experiences a heart arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat, the devices are designed to correct the arrhythmia by shocking the heart with a jolt of electricity. According to the lawsuits, Guidant knew as early as 2002 that its defibrillators might not deliver the jolts of electricity when needed, but it did not act quickly enough to correct the problem. According to the government, the flawed defibrillators are responsible for 13 known deaths and possibly more. Guidant did not issue a recall of the defibrillators until 2005, nearly three years after it allegedly became aware of the problems with its defibrillators. Although Guidant eventually fixed the problems with its defibrillators, the company is accused of selling defective devices it still had in stock. Recently, Guidant pleaded guilty to criminal charges for withholding information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and failing to inform regulators of catastrophic failures in its devices. As a result of the guilty plea, Guidant was sentenced to three years of probation and was ordered to pay $296 million in penalties. Sources: Minnesota Public Radio, “US sues Boston Scientific, alleging false claims by Guidant unit,” Martin Moylan, 1/28/2011 The Wall Street Journal, “US Justice Department Files Civil Lawsuit Over Guidant Defibrillators,” Brent Kendall, 1/27/2011

The parents of a 1-year-old boy who died in his crib in January 2008 are suing the retailer that sold them the crib. According to the complaint filed in federal court last month, the boy died from asphyxiation when he suffocated in a Simplicity Ellis Deluxe 4-in-1 Convertible Sleep System crib. The complaint alleges that Hayneedle Inc., the retailer that sold the crib, was grossly negligent in failing to warn the boy’s parents of the crib’s “dangerous and defective characteristics” and failing to inform them of the safe method of assembling, using and maintaining the crib. The boy’s death contributed to a nationwide recall of Simplicity cribs by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in April 2010. According to the recall notice, he suffocated when he was trapped between the crib mattress and the crib frame. In the recall notice, the CPSC noted 13 additional incidents of the cribs collapsing due to the metal frame that supported the mattress bending or detaching. “Simplicity cribs are one of the deadliest products that we’ve dealt with in recent years,” said CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson. More than 2 million cribs have been recalled, but the exact amount of the cribs that have been sold is unknown because the manufacturer has gone out of business. “We believe that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of these cribs could still be out there,” Wolfson said. The CPSC advises parents to take heed of the dangers of the Simplicity cribs. “There are many cribs that Simplicity made and sold that do not have a remedy available, and we urgently ask parents to throw them away,” said Wolfson. Sources: Boston Herald, “‘Deadliest’ crib seller sued,” Donna Goodison, 1/7/2011 Consumer Product Safety Commission, Recall Notice For Simplicity Cribs (retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10211.html)

Hip replacements generally last a decade, sometimes even two. What is presently happening with multiple hip replacement systems made by DePuy, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, is unprecedented and spells potentially huge product liability trouble for the manufacturer and its parent company. A case in point is the DePuy metal-on-metal implant – called the ASR XL Acetabular System – placed into Annie O’Neill, a 67-year-old New York resident in May 2009. Shortly after implant, the product began detaching from her acetabulum and then began emitting successively louder noises from her hip. The pain became severe, and O-Neill underwent hip revision surgery in July 2010, not much more than a year after her DePuy implant was first inserted. Then, one month later, DePuy recalled the product, along with the ASR Hip Resurfacing System. The implants were reported as having a 13 percent and a 12 percent failure rate, respectively. Prior to the recall, more than 90,000 of DePuy’s artificial hip systems were sold, and a steadily rising number of people – like O’Neill, alleging extreme pain – have now brought suit against the manufacturer for faulty design. Many of them are also citing the exorbitant costs they are shouldering as a result of the second remedial surgery, as well as a diminished quality of life resulting from the defective implant. Persons with questions about personal injuries related to DePuy’s hip replacement implants or the recall should contact an experienced product liability attorney. Related Resource: www.aboutlawsuits.com “ Metal-on-Metal Hip Lawsuit Filed Against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy” November 17, 2010

A federal vehicle safety standard that went into effect more than four decades ago and is still the baseline for manufacturers in the car industry is at the center of controversy in scores of alleged cases in which back-seat passengers – most often children – have been seriously injured. The operative regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, which engineer Lou D’Aurelio and other automotive experts say is sorely outdated. While testifying in a recent product liability case, D’Aurelio said that the standard, which sets forth requirements for seat back strength, is not nearly exacting enough, and has resulted in many accidents where a driver’s or passenger’s front seat doesn’t hold up in a collision. Instead, it slams backward, with its occupant hitting the rear-seat passenger at high impact. When that is a child, the resulting injuries can be devastating. In the case where D’Aurelio was speaking as an expert witness, a Virginia jury awarded $8 million to a 5-year-old girl who suffered serious brain juries after being struck in such a manner when her family’s car was rear ended by another vehicle. A spokesperson for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that the agency is considering updating the standard. The defendant in the Virginia case, a seat supplier for Chrysler, is appealing the verdict, saying that, “It is undisputed that the seat in question was in compliance with the car manufacturer’s safety requirements, which are more stringent than the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.” Related Resource: www.nbcchicago.com “ Collapsing Car Seats Blamed for Injuring Passengers” November 10, 2010

A motor vehicle accident in California in 2002 killed a rear-seat passenger in a minivan who was wearing a lap-only seat belt, the only type of safety belt provided by Mazda at that time. The victim’s family brought a product liability lawsuit against the auto maker, alleging that a lap-and-shoulder belt would have saved her life. The case has now slowly worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, following California appellate court and state Supreme Court rulings that the lawsuit was preempted by federal law. The Justices are apparently split on whether the suit should be allowed to proceed. One of them is not participating in the case because of a conflict. If the Court splits 4-4, Mazda will win the case, but no legal precedent would be established. The argument favoring preemption was stated by Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that federal law at the time did not require auto manufacturers to install shoulder-and-lap belts because of their added costs. He stated that allowing cases to proceed in instances where car makers installed only lap belts – legal at the time – would be illogical and unjust and would substitute later judgment for that of regulators at the time. A Justice Department lawyer argued that the suit should be allowed to go forward, noting that, while car makers were given the choice at the time to install lap-only belts, “they are not exempted from the consequences of that choice.” The plaintiff’s attorney argued that not preempting such lawsuits would give manufacturers “an incentive to develop safer vehicles.” The Court is expected to announce its decision in June 2011. Related Resource: online.wsj.com “US Supreme Court Appears Split on Seat Belt Lawsuit” November 3, 2010