Blog / Product Liability

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Seat Belt Product Liability Lawsuit

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Seat Belt Product Liability Lawsuit

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

Posted in:

Related Posts

How much does your work gear actually protect you?

How much does your work gear actually protect you?

Working in various settings can expose workers to a range of hazards, including heights, accidents involving heavy machinery and electrical events. These hazards put workers at risk of being injured or killed on the job, so preventing them is vital. Wearing appropriate protective gear can be one of the easiest ways to protect yourself. Thus, workers should know whether their equipment is effective at keeping them safe. Is it suitable for the job? Not all equipment is necessary for all jobs. For instance, wearing fall protection can be essential if you are working off the ground on a construction site, but it may create more problems than it solves for workers who are less than six feet off the ground. The same can be said for gloves, helmets, thick clothing and eye protection. These are all essential types of gear, but they are not necessary for every job. Workers and employers must assess the specific situation and risks and decide on protective equipment accordingly. When do you wear your gear? Protective equipment is only effective when people use it – and use it properly. If an employer provides gear, workers should wear it; if a task requires certain precautions, employers should provide the necessary equipment or ensure workers have it throughout the job. Enforcing and following safe practices for wearing protective equipment should happen every day. Even though the gear may not prevent an accident from occurring, it can save a worker’s life and minimize potential injuries caused by the incident. Is it safe, or is it defective? Unfortunately, workers might make every effort to have and wear protective gear only to learn that it is defective and does not adequately affect individuals. For instance, multiple parties have accused 3M of providing defective earplugs to the military and attempting to cover up the design flaws. Injured parties argued that they suffered hearing loss and tinnitus even though they had used the earplugs, while 3M claims the products are safe and effective. These cases can be a reminder that even when individuals wear protective gear, they can be at risk of injuries if it is defective. Separately, if a worker is provided safety gear, and, for whatever reason, happens to not be wearing the safety gear at the time of the accident, the worker may still remain entitled to workers’ compensation benefits should they be injured on the job. If you work in an occupation where you are exposed to dangerous situations, protective gear could save your life. While the first priority is to ensure you have and wear safe, effective equipment, employers ultimately bear the responsibility of employee safety.

Car seats protect overweight children, too, study finds

Car seats protect overweight children, too, study finds

As any parent can attest, kids come in all sizes. Some are small for their age, and others are, yes, overweight. No matter what size they are, they deserve to be protected from harm, and parents expect that from products designed for safety. That includes child car seats. A recent study explored whether car seats adequately protect children of all sizes, even those who are overweight or obese. The study, conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, included 1,000 children ages 1 to 8 who had been in properly installed car seats appropriate for their height and weight when they were involved in a car accident. The researchers found that there was no increased risk of injury for large or overweight children. This suggests that the range of sizes for infant, booster and child safety seats available on the market is currently adequate. The researchers stress, however, that the car seat must be installed properly. Babies and toddlers should sit in a rear-facing seat for their first two years unless they’ve already reached the height and weight of a seat for an older child. Just as you wouldn’t strap your infant into a seat belt in the front seat, it’s important not to have the wrong car seat or position for a child of any age. One of the best ways to determine the appropriate seating is to discuss your child’s size with a pediatrician. As one of the researchers pointed out, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to car seats. Your younger son may outgrow his seat and the rear-facing position at an earlier age than your older daughter did. Children are especially vulnerable in car accidents; they’re the No. 1 cause of child death and injury. And while finding the best car seat fit for your child isn’t a guarantee he or she won’t be hurt, it can greatly reduce the likelihood. Source: Torque News, “ Car Seats Safe for Overweight Kids Too,” Nov. 28, 2011

Smoking-cessation drug Chantix linked to serious side effects

Smoking-cessation drug Chantix linked to serious side effects

The smoking-cessation drug Chantix appears to be a dangerous product, with risks that outweigh its benefits, according to Dr. Curt Furberg of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center. He is the co-author of a new study that shows people taking Chantix are far more likely to attempt suicide and experience serious depression than people using other types of smoking-cessation treatments. The new study contradicts two recent government studies conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In those studies, researchers counted how many people were hospitalized for psychiatric problems and found there was no difference in hospitalization rates for people using Chantix and those using nicotine patches. Dr. Furberg said this was not the right way to measure the extent of the problem because many people who attempt suicide, are depressed or have other serious psychiatric problems are not hospitalized and would not have been counted in the FDA study. Dr. Furberg’s study looked at data from 12 years of reports to the FDA of depression or self-injury. He found there were more than ten times as many reports of adverse events for Chantix users as there were for users of Zyban, another popular smoking-cessation drug. Even fewer users of nicotine-replacement products, such as the patch, reported serious adverse psychiatric events. Dr. Furberg wants the FDA to restrict Chantix so that it won’t be used as a first-choice treatment, but instead would only be prescribed to individuals who already tried and failed to quit with other types of smoking-cessation treatments. Source: Reuters, “New study says Chantix raises suicide risks,” Julie Steenhuysen, Nov. 2, 2011