Product Liability Cases

Published on: March 8, 2021

Amazon Products Liability Case Could Affect Texas Consumers in Products Liability Claims

In light of COVID-19, everyone seems to be shopping online more frequently. Whether you’re shopping online to adhere to social distancing concerns or simply out of boredom, Amazon has become an important part of regular online shopping trips in many households. When a product purchased from the online retailer, however, injures someone in your family, is Amazon liable in a Texas products liability lawsuit? Or is the entity or individual who sold you the product responsible?

In a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, the court had to consider a Texas products liability case involving a parent’s worst nightmare. The plaintiff’s husband purchased a remote control from Amazon.com. A year later, the couple’s 19-month-old baby girl swallowed the battery from the remote control. Surgeons had to remove the battery.

The plaintiff claimed that the battery’s fluid from its electrical charge resulted in severe, permanent, and irreversible damage to the child’s esophagus. After the plaintiff notified Amazon of the incident, Amazon notified the seller, who did not respond. The seller’s account was subsequently suspended. The plaintiff sued Amazon and the seller, alleging strict liability and negligence under a variety of product liability theories.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 15, 2021

Texas Product Liability Lawsuits Following a Product Recall

By Carabin Shaw

When a consumer purchases a new product, they rightfully trust that the designer, manufacturer, and retailer took measures to ensure the product’s safety and efficacy. However, despite testing standards and federal oversight, some dangerous products make their way into the consumer stream. Products with a design or manufacturing defect or that are inherently dangerous may cause serious injuries and lead to a Texas product liability lawsuit. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (USCPSC) requires manufacturers, distributors, and similar entities to report any issues with their products and issue recalls if necessary. However, these parties may still face liability even if they issued a recall.

Texas product liability laws cover claims stemming from design defects, manufacturing defects, and warning defects. The law allows injury victims to recover damages against manufacturers or sellers of a defective product that causes personal injury, death, or property damage. Texas design defect claims are generally the most onerous product liability claim. In these cases, plaintiffs must establish that the victim suffered injuries because the product’s design was inherently dangerous. The law requires plaintiffs to present evidence of a safer and economically feasible alternative design. Manufacturing defects are relevant when the product’s design is appropriate, but something went awry during the manufacturing process that made a specific item dangerous. This type of claim may be appropriate when a manufacturer fails to meet safety or design standards. However, the claims do not apply to those who suffer injuries from a defective product manufactured before updated safety standards. Finally, failure to warn claims are applicable when a manufacturer did not provide appropriate instructions or warnings.

The New York Times recently reported that The Home Depot recalled a popular indoor/outdoor fan, after reports that the fans’ blades were detaching while spinning. The Home Depot issued a voluntary recall after nearly 50 consumer reports of detaching blades. The USCPSC, reported that The Home Depot voluntarily recalled the fans and ceased sales when they discovered the issue. They maintain that the fans are not inherently dangerous, and the hazard resulted from a manufacturing defect.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 28, 2020

Amazon Products Sold in Texas Being Flagged as Fire Hazards

By Carabin Shaw

Because of social distancing requirements in the wake of COVID-19, people in Texas are taking advantage of shopping from the comfort and safety of their own homes. In addition, the ease and availability of all kinds of products through online retailers has made it possible to purchase everything from your family’s weekly grocery haul to the newest gadget. But when that package arrives on your doorstep, is the item you have received safe? Outside of the convenience factor of the shopping experience, can we trust online retailers and their products? If you are a Texan who has purchased a faulty product from an online retailer that has become a hazard or dangerous, you may be eligible to receive compensation through a product liability claim.

According to a recent article, an investigation has revealed that dozens of AmazonBasics electronics and other products have remained for sale despite consumers reporting that they were potential fire hazards. AmazonBasics is one of the massive retailer’s most popular lines, with a variety of budget-friendly products that range from kitchen and home basics to electronic accessories. The investigation yielded nearly 1,500 reviews on the Amazon website involving more than 70 products described as potentially dangerous. Despite reviews on these items using terms like “hazard” or “fire” or demanding the product to be recalled entirely, many of these items still remain for sale on the retailer’s website.

Following these reports, three lawmakers are demanding the recall of any hazardous products bearing the Amazon brand. Although the retailer did not respond directly to the investigation, electrical engineers told investigators that other factors may be at play when using these products, such as faulty wiring within a home or user error. According to the engineers, electronics sold under the AmazonBasics name should not typically pose a danger to the public when properly made and used according to instructions. Critics disagree.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 18, 2020

FDA Recall of Over 130 Hand Sanitizer Products May Allow for Texas Product Liability Claims

By Carabin Shaw

pexels-anna-shvets-3987150-200x300 Following the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the United States earlier this year, thousands of Americans flooded stores in search of hand sanitizer and other cleaning supplies. Many stores were completely wiped out from the start of the pandemic of such supplies and have taken several months to restock these products because of demand. In preparation for the uncertainty associated with the pandemic, many Texans purchased large quantities of these products. However, recent FDA recalls indicate that some of these sanitizing products may be causing members of our community to become ill. These recalls may be the basis for a Texas product liability claim.

According to a recent article, federal regulators from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been urging consumers to avoid more than 130 hand sanitizers that were previously available through stores such as Walmart and other national major retailers. The agency has cited that many of these products lack the sufficient level of alcohol necessary to effectively kill germs or that the products contain dangerous and potentially deadly levels of wood alcohol.

With hand sanitizer demand skyrocketing during COVID-19, a new rush of brands manufacturing hand sanitizer has entered the market. However, while many of these products claim to contain ethanol (otherwise known as ethyl alcohol), FDA tests have shown that they actually contain methanol, or wood alcohol. Methanol can potentially be toxic when absorbed through the skin and could even cause blindness or death if consumed. Because many products have been mislabeled, consumers would be unable to tell which items actually contain methanol. The FDA has kept an updated list of recalled products on its website for easy reference.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 26, 2020

RECALL ALERT: National Recall for Insulin Pump Used for Type 1 Diabetes

By Carabin Shaw

(NATIONAL RECALL: February 2020) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a recall for an insulin pump that thousands of people use with Type 1 diabetes. The recall is centered around certain Medtronic MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps.

One person has died, 2,175 people have received injuries and there have been more than 26,000 complaints, according to a statement released by the FDA.

Medtronic is recalling the specified insulin pumps due to a missing or broken retainer ring. That ring helps lock the insulin cartridge into place, according to the FDA.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 13, 2020

ACCIDENT INJURY REPORT: CHESAPEAKE ENERGY HAS SECOND EXPLOSION INCIDENT

By Carabin Shaw

https://www.texasinjurylawyersblog.com/files/2020/02/Screen-Shot-2020-02-13-at-2.43.48-PM.png

Google Earth

Bryan, Texas, February 8, 2020: A second explosion happened at one of Chesapeake Energy’s oil wells in the Eagle Ford Shale just two weeks after a Jan. 29 deadly explosion at a Chesapeake Energy oil well site in nearby Burleson County. Three men were killed and one man was left hospitalized in the Burleson incident. Bryan Maldonado, 25, and Windell Beddingfield died in what is the deadliest oilfield accident since January 2018.

Authorities are investigating the accident which occurred about 1 a.m. Saturday at a storage tank on the company’s Luther lease off Sandy Point and Old San Antonio Roads in a rural area of Brazos County about eight miles northwest of Bryan.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 23, 2018

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms $3.4 Million Verdict in Recent Product Liability Case

By Carabin Shaw

Earlier this month, the federal circuit court overseeing the federal district courts in Texas issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing several pertinent issues for Texas product liability plaintiffs. The case required the court to determine if a jury’s $3.4 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff was supported by sufficient evidence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s evidence did support the jury’s verdict, and thus the verdict was affirmed on appeal.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, through his wife, filed a product liability lawsuit against his employer as well as the manufacturer of a crane that the plaintiff was operating at the time of his accident. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered a serious injury when the counterweights attached to a crane he was operating slid into the operator’s cab, knocking the plaintiff out of the cab and sending him head-first onto the concrete eight feet below.

The plaintiff claimed that the crane manufacturer was liable under a “failure to warn” theory. Essentially, the plaintiff’s argument was that the manufacturer’s included warnings failed to fully inform users of the risks involved with the crane tipping over. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that alternative warnings would have better informed him and may have prevented the accident.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 28, 2016

Compelling Discovery from a Manufacturer in a Texas Product Liability Case

By Carabin Shaw

In re Michelin North America, Inc. is a recent product liability case. The case arose when a woman driving a 2013 Ford Explorer was hit by Robert Coleman’s Ford F250 pickup. The pickup crossed the center line when its left front tire failed, and it crashed into the Explorer, killing the woman. The driver of the pickup and his passengers were seriously injured.

The woman’s heir filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging negligence and strict product liability against Michelin and a negligence claim against the driver of the pickup. The pickup driver filed a petition to intervene in the wrongful death lawsuit against Michelin.

The tire at issue was manufactured at a Michelin plant in 2011. The pickup driver claimed the tread peeled off the left front tire, and it lost air quickly because of tread separation, resulting in the pickup driver losing control. Before filing suit, the pickup driver’s attorney asked that specified evidence be preserved. The pickup driver’s attorney made several discovery requests to Michelin, which objected and claimed trade secret privilege, among other things. The court granted the pickup driver’s motion to compel access. The order allowed videotaping, limited to an hour.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 10, 2015

Is a Medical Device Manufacturer a “Health Care Provider” in Texas?

By Carabin Shaw

In Verticor, Ltd. v. Wood, an appellate court considered whether personal injury lawsuits against a medical device manufacturer count as health care liability claims for the purposes of the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). The case arose when a surgeon treated a herniated disc in the plaintiff’s lumbar spine by using a device called the “Eclipse Sphere,” which was manufactured by the defendant. After suffering complications, the plaintiff sued the doctor and the manufacturer.

The plaintiff argued that the surgeon had used the device in a non-fusion procedure, although it was only approved by the FDA for use in fusion procedures in the lumbar region. The FDA had also required that the device’s packaging and manuals include a warning about how its safety in non-fusion procedures hadn’t been established yet.

The plaintiff argued that the doctor was professionally and grossly negligent in using the device in an off-label, experimental fashion and not getting his informed consent for it. He also claimed that the manufacturer had solicited the off-label use, alleging strict liability theories of failure to warn, negligent marketing, a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and fraud. The manufacturer claimed as an affirmative defense that it is a health care provider as defined by the TMLA.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 9, 2015

Texas Supreme Court Rules on Design Defect Case

By Carabin Shaw

The Texas Supreme Court recently decided Genie Industries, Inc. v. Ricky Matak, a product liability case. In Texas, manufacturers are not liable for design defects unless there is a safer alternative design and the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous such that its risks outweigh its usefulness.

The case arose when a worker was supported 40 feet in the air by an aerial lift made by the defendant. The base of the lift was small and on wheels, and an electromechanical interlock prevented the platform from being elevated unless all outriggers were in place and leveling jacks were pressed to the ground. Others tried to move the lift with the worker on it. There were signs on the machine and instructions in the user manual that warned the machine could tip over, causing the worker to fall from a great height. The worker in this case did fall and died of massive head injuries. There have been only three reported accidents like the one in this case.

Continue reading →