Young children (ages 5 to 9) are the second-most likely group to be severely injured by fireworks.
It’s time to dust off the BBQ pits and bust out your lawn flags — Independence Day is less than a week away.
Paraquat is an extremely popular herbicide used by many licensed agricultural workers. The reason it’s so popular is that this product is highly effective when it comes to killing nasty weeds and overgrown grass. However, there are risks to using this product. Studies have shown that there’s an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease from being exposed to Paraquat. It is, In fact, so toxic that only certified professionals are allowed to buy this product and use it by law in the United States.
Parkinson’s disease is vicious to those it affects. It progressively shuts down the nervous system as It slowly kills certain nerve cells called neurons found in the brain. Many of the symptoms are due to a loss of neurons that produce a chemical messenger called dopamine. When there is a decrease in dopamine, the brain begins to have abnormal activity, and your movement capabilities can begin to fail. However, many other symptoms can occur when this happens.
This disease can lead to the person developing issues with chewing and swallowing properly due to the disease affecting the muscles in their mouth. In addition, cognitive issues like being unable to remember things and control your emotions (dementia) are also symptoms of this horrendous disease. There are many symptoms such as; general pain in the body or specific areas, losing your ability to differentiate particular odors you previously could without any difficulties, having a lack of energy throughout the day, changes in blood pressure causing you to feel lightheaded or dizzy, and many others.
To save time and labor, farmers and agricultural workers often turn to herbicides to aid them in their agricultural work. For example, some herbicides like Paraquat aid them in exterminating overgrown weeds and other unwanted grasses. Unfortunately, while this may be beneficial to the farmer saving them time and money, Paraquat can have fatal consequences. Paraquat is an extremely poisonous herbicide that can lead to death if an individual or agricultural worker ingests it.
Paraquat can not even be purchased in the United States unless the applicator has a license for it. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified it as “restricted use.”. This herbicide has very tight restrictions due to the fact it’s highly poisonous. Unlike most other herbicides, Paraquat can’t be applied if the applicator does not have a license, even if they are under the supervision of someone who does. Paraquat is so dangerous that only licensed professionals are allowed to apply it on their crops.
Several safety precautions are taken to deter an individual from confusing Paraquat with a beverage or other liquid. In the United States, A blue dye and sharp odor are added to the liquid so that one doesn’t confuse it with other beverages as well as an added agent that causes vomiting if accidentally ingested. In addition, those who apply the product must wear extra protective equipment such as respiratory protection, safety glasses, and more. Those who mix and load Paraquat are required to wear full-face shields and chemical-resistant aprons.
Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a horrible disease that can affect premature infants. The condition is gastrointestinal and causes inflammation and infections in the intestines that can lead to the intestinal cells dying. If the inflammation gets severe, it can create holes in the intestine, potentially leading to intestinal bacteria getting into the affected infant’s abdominal area or blood. If this happens, getting a severe illness or a deadly blood infection is, unfortunately, a possible outcome.
When a baby is born underweight or prematurely, they often need extra protein to strengthen their tiny bodies while they grow. The little one’s growth can be very challenging all on its own, which is why if the baby doesn’t breastfeed, the doctor or nurse may recommend using baby formula products. While this may seem like an entirely sound choice to make, unfortunately, this is not always the case. Studies have recently shown a link between premature infants developing NEC and baby formula.
Trusting companies who develop baby formulas can be so easy. After all, the reason they are developed is to help your infant get the proper nourishment they need for their healthy growth. But unfortunately, some companies fail to warn parents of the risks their product could have on their infants. Popular baby formula brands like Similac and Enfamil did not properly warn parents that using their products could increase their infants’ risk of getting NEC. When manufacturers fail to warn consumers about their products’ potential dangers, it becomes a serious issue.
You might be wondering what Necrotizing enterocolitis or NEC is. It is a common and severe intestinal condition among premature infants. It occurs when tissue in the large or small intestine is injured or inflamed. When the tissue gets damaged or inflamed, it may lead to the death of intestinal tissue and, sometimes, a hole (perforation) in the intestinal wall.
When an infant has NEC, the intestine can no longer hold waste. This may cause bacteria to find their way into the bloodstream and cause a deadly infection. In addition, waste could potentially enter into the infant’s abdomen and cause the infant to get critically ill. Because of all the damage sustained to the intestines, sections may die and need to get removed.
Symptoms of this potentially deadly disease include but are not limited to an unstable and low body temperature, apnea (pauses in breathing), being lethargic or less active, constipation, trouble feeding, and diarrhea.
The Supreme Court of Texas recently issued an opinion in a lawsuit against an insulation products company. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiffs built a home in Texas and purchased products from a spray foam insulation company. The insulation was designed to make the home quieter and energy efficient by sealing areas where air loss occurs. Shortly after the installation, the family began suffering from various ailments, including coughing spells, burning eyes, allergies, and headaches. The company advised the family that the spray foam smell would dissipate over time. The company then sent an “independent contractor” sales representative to inspect the property; however, the family never received the inspection results.
In response, the family filed a lawsuit against the spray foam company, alleging various claims, including products liability and negligence. They argued that their injuries arose from the sale and installation of the spray foam used in their home. In response, the company contended that because the company never sold or advertised any of the products in Texas, the state did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Further, they argued that they did not have any involvement with the company that inspected the property. The appeals court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Texas had either general or specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
Under Texas law, a court must have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties to issue a judgment. Texas courts can assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if the state’s long-arm statute permits exercising jurisdiction and comports with federal due-process guarantees. Specific jurisdiction applies when the defendant’s contact with the state is purposeful, and the cause of action arises from those contacts.
CANCER CAUSING BENZENE FOUND IN SUNSCREENS LINKED TO HIGHER RISK–KILLER TAN CAN BE DEADLY – 40 SUNSCREEN BRANDS RECALLED
July 17, 2021, San Antonio, Texas: Sunscreen products have been pulled from shelves across the country after they were found to contain significant amounts of benzene, a known carcinogen. Experts say any benzene exposure poses a health risk. Benzene has been linked to increased cancer risk since and had five times higher than normal risk of leukemia.
“There’s no such thing as a safe level of exposure, and that’s especially true for children,” said Philip Landrigan, director of the Global Public Health Program and Global Pollution Observatory at Boston College.
Various state and federal agencies regulate the safety of infant and baby products. While these agencies possess the power to administer and enforce federal safety laws, many dangerous products continue to make their way into the consumer stream. Every year infants and children in Texas experience exposure to dangerous and potentially life-threatening products. When this occurs, family members should consider filing a Texas product liability claim against the defective product’s manufacturer or retailer.
For instance, Fisher-Price is once again recalling one of its most popular infant products. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission received reports citing the Rock n’ Glide Sleeper as the cause of four infants’ deaths. In each of the cases, the infants were placed unrestrained on their backs in the sleeper but were later found unresponsive on their stomachs. The deaths included infants ranging from 11 weeks to 4 months old. The current recall comes after a similar situation in 2019, in which the company agreed to recall its Rock’ n Play sleeper after several babies suffocated after rolling to their stomachs in the device.
Texas product liability lawsuits generally fall under one or more of the three types of defective product claims. The claims generally stem from design defects, failure to warn claims or manufacturing defects. Design defect claims apply when a product’s defective design poses a danger to the user. Claimants in these cases must establish that the company could have used a less dangerous design, the alternative design would not pose an unreasonable financial burden, and the alternative design would have maintained the product’s purpose and use. Failure to warn claims applies when a product poses an unreasonable danger even when used according to its directions. Finally, manufacturing defects claim that the product is defective because of an error that occurred during production.
The Supreme Court of Texas issued a decision in Emerson v. Johnson, upholding a multi-million dollar verdict in a Texas product liability lawsuit. The record indicates that the plaintiff, a highly experienced HVAC repairman, suffered severe burns to over 60% of his body while installing an HVAC unit. After an outdated and malfunctioning compressor in the unit exploded, the unit released scalding hot liquid all over the man. Despite the man’s HVAC experience, there was no way he could have known that the new compressor incorporated outdated technology inside the unit.
The man filed a product liability lawsuit against both the product’s manufacturer and an affiliate who designed and made the unit. He argued that the defendants defectively designed and manufactured the terminal and compressor. After a trial, a jury found that the older terminal design was unreasonably dangerous. The defendant asked the court to overturn the verdict based on legal sufficiency grounds or for a retrial because of a jury charge error.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendants’ case largely rested on their contention that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the terminal was unreasonably dangerous. A defective design inquiry requires the jury to find that the product is unreasonably dangerous as designed. The jury must consider the utility of the product and the risk of its use.
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.
Texas Injury Lawyers Blog