Product Liability Cases

Published on: March 24, 2013

How to Stay Safe this Easter

Easter can be a time for fun, great food, candy, little toys, and Easter egg hunts. However, certain safety issues arise each Easter. Specifically, from a food safety standpoint, Easter can be the single most dangerous holiday. To help ensure a safe Easter for all Texans this year, follow the safety tips provided below.

Candy & Toy Safety

Easter baskets are a big part of Easter. However, certain gifts inside these baskets may create safety hazards. To prevent choking, the University of Texas at San Antonio Police Department recommends refraining from putting the following candy and food in Easter baskets: (1) hard, round candy; (2) thick and/or sticky candy; (3) candy with nuts; (4) caramel; (5) sour candy; and (6) jaw breakers. Since children’s airways are higher and narrower than an adult’s, these candies can create a choking hazard.

Along those same lines, make sure that all Easter toys and dolls are free of choking hazards before placing them inside any Easter basket. In addition, as the fake grass often used in Easter baskets is not easily digestible, it is important to keep it away from young children. Finally, some children have nut allergies that are very serious, so be sure to check with parents before offering chocolate bunnies or other candies that may contain nuts. To protect those children with peanut allergies, be careful to read the label of contents of any chocolate included in the baskets. Even though many packages read “pure chocolate,” the chocolate may have been in contact with nuts or peanuts during their preparation or packaging.

Egg Safety

Many Easter celebrations involve Easter egg hunts. Although eggs are nutritious and a big part of this holiday celebration, it is important to remember that unbroken, clean, fresh shell eggs may contain Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) bacteria that can cause foodborne illness. In order to ensure that your children remain safe this Easter there are some important safe handling methods to remember when preparing, decorating, cooking or hiding Easter eggs.

First, when purchasing your eggs, always purchase from a refrigerated case. In addition, don’t buy out-of-date eggs and be sure to choose eggs with clean and uncracked shells. Eggs should be refrigerated as soon as possible after purchase. Once you bring your eggs home, they should be kept in their carton and placed in the coldest part of the refrigerator, not in the door. Raw in-shell eggs can be kept in the refrigerator a maximum of three to five weeks.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 21, 2013

Girl Who Suffered Rare Skin Disease and Lost 90% of Her Skin After taking Children’s Motrin Awarded $63 Million by Jury

By Carabin Shaw

Almost ten years after a young girl suffered a life-threatening reaction to the children’s pain reliever, Motrin, that caused her to lose most of her skin and left her legally blind, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $63 million to the girl and her parents.

In 2003, when the then-7-year-old girl from Plymouth, Massachusetts, had a fever, her parents gave her Children’s Motrin. The girl had previously taken Motrin without suffering any side effects. However, this time, instead of her condition improving, she got worse, and ended up in the hospital for months. More specifically, the disease inflamed the girl’s throat, mouth, eyes, esophagus, intestinal tract, respiratory system, and reproductive system, forcing physicians to put her in a coma. Unbeknownst to her parents, ibuprofen, a common painkiller found in Motrin, can cause a rare, and potentially fatal, skin disease known as toxic epidermal necrolysis or “TEN” that eats away at your skin.

The young girl was not only forced to undergo surgery to drill through her skull to relieve some pressure, but she also lost 90% of her skin and is now legally blind. In addition, the girl suffered severe permanent lung and liver damage, and now has only 20% lung capacity. Although she also suffered brain damage, it caused only short-term memory loss.

Following this grueling experience, in 2007, the girl’s parents sued Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Motrin, and its subsidiary, McNeil PPC, Inc., for failing to provide proper warning of the possible side effects. The key issue in the lawsuit was the warning label Johnson & Johnson used for Children’s Motrin, made by McNeil-PPC, Inc. Notably, even though the prescription version of adult Motrin briefly mentions Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a more common version of TEN, the over-the-counter children’s version of Motrin that was provided to the young girl, contained no such warning at all.

A manufacturer can be sued under one of three theories for injuries caused by a product or drug, including: (1) defective design, (2) defective manufacturing, or (3) defective warning and labeling. Here, the family sued the health care company under the third theory, alleging that the company failed to meet its labeling requirement. When dealing with warning labels, courts can find a product defective because of an inaccurate or inadequate warning label. Importantly, by law, the manufacturer is required to warn consumers of hidden dangers, and instruct users how to use a product in a way that will avoid the dangers.

In this case, the jury agreed that Johnson & Johnson failed to provide adequate warnings about ibuprofen’s potential side effects and awarded the girl, now 16, $50 million, and awarded an additional $6.5 million to each of her parents. With interest, the award totals $109 million.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 11, 2013

Texas Supreme Court Rules that a Manufacturer Satisfies its Duty to Warn by Providing Sufficient Warning to a Doctor: Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton

By Carabin Shaw

One key product liability issue to watch for in 2013 is reportedly the continued adoption of the learned intermediary doctrine by states. In June 2012, Texas joined 35 other states in holding that a sufficient warning to a treating doctor (the “learned intermediary”) satisfies a manufacturer’s duty to warn in product liability cases involving medicine and medical devices. Adoption of this rule essentially means that pharmaceutical manufacturers are not responsible for conveying drug risks to patients, even when the drug makers advertise their products directly to consumers.

With the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, Texas became the largest remaining state where the Supreme Court had not adopted the learned intermediary rule, which requires warnings only to prescribing physicians–not to any health care provider with which the plaintiff may happen to come into contact. Unfortunately for future victims of negligent misbranding, negligent marketing, and fraud in drug/medical device product liability cases, the court all but did away with the direct-to-consumer exception to the rule, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to successfully bring suit against drug manufacturers.

In Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, the product at issue was Remicade, a prescription drug manufactured by Centocor, Inc. Patricia Hamilton suffered from Crohn’s disease and sought treatment from her physician, who informed her that her only treatment options were steroids or Remicade intravenous infusions. After her physician informed her of the risks and benefits of each approach, Patricia opted for the Remicade infusions. Following the treatment, Patricia claimed that the Remicade infusions caused her to suffer a serious drug-induced side effect called lupus-like syndrome.

Patricia and Thomas Hamilton brought suit, contending that the informational video shown to Hamilton by her physician in the course of her prescribed treatments provided “inadequate and inappropriate warnings and instruction for use” of its prescription drug Remicade, which made Remicade “defective and unreasonably dangerous.” More specifically, the couple alleged that Centocor’s video over-emphasized the benefits of Remicade and intentionally omitted warnings about the potential side effect of lupus-like syndrome. They argued that the video bypassed the physician-patient relationship and required Centocor to warn Patricia directly of Remicade’s potential risks and side effects, thereby making Centocor liable for Patricia’s injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 18, 2013

Toyota Settles “Sudden Acceleration” Case In Utah

By Carabin Shaw

The Toyota Motor Company has agreed to settle one of its “sudden accelerator” product liability cases in Utah that killed two people and injured two other family members. The case was set to go to trial in February. Details of the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

In December, Toyota agreed to settle hundreds of claims in a class action for individuals who declared that they suffered economic losses due to a recall of millions of its cars because of sudden acceleration issues. That settlement was reported to be for more than $1 billion.

However, hundreds of other plaintiffs who are suing for serious personal injuries and wrongful death were not included in that massive deal. Those cases are pending and the Utah case was one of the bellwether cases set to go to trial first. Typically, bellwether cases are large cases based on the same theories of recovery, which judges and lawyers use as guidelines for evaluating cases that follow.

The Utah settlement was reached for an accident that involved Paul Van Alfen, his wife, son and his son’s fiancee, Charlene Jones Lloyd. Their accident occurred on November 5, 2010, on I-80 close to Wendover, Utah. As they were traveling on the interstate, their Toyota Camry suddenly accelerated, went through a stop sign at the bottom of an exit ramp and struck a wall. Skids evidenced Van Alfen’s attempt to stop the vehicle as it left I-80.

The accident resulted in two fatalities, Van Alfen and Lloyd. Van Alfen’s wife and son received injuries.

An investigation conducted by the Utah Highway Patrol revealed that the collision occurred because the accelerator was stuck, causing the Camry to suddenly accelerate.

Other settlements have recently been reported, including one involving a retired Los Angeles police officer and another involving a California Highway Patrol officer. In the latter case, the patrol officer and his entire family were killed near San Diego in 2009 when their Lexus suddenly accelerated, hit speeds of over 120 miles per hour, flipped and burst into flames. Investigation revealed that the accelerator had been mashed down by an improperly sized floor mat.

Toyota issued a statement that the recent settlements should not be an indication of what’s to come for other pending lawsuits. In other words, Toyota is going to pick and choose the weaker cases that they take to trial and settle the larger, stronger headline cases.

The company continues to stand behind the safety and integrity of their cars, while blaming these tragic accidents on driver error, faulty floor mats and faulty accelerator pedals.

Continue reading →