Boston Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

Maclaren Stroller Recall: What A Parent Should Do

Steven Schafer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:01:00 GMT

On November 9, 2009, Maclaren USA, the American subsidiary of the British manufacturer of umbrella strollers and other children’s products, “voluntarily” recalled about 1 million strollers because of fingertip lacerations and amputations. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, “The stroller’s hinge mechanism poses a fingertip amputation and laceration hazard to the child when the consumer is unfolding [or] opening the stroller.”

Two earlier articles focused on the supposed “voluntary” aspect of the recall and a manufacturer’s responsibility to identify and eliminate design defects so that injuries like these don’t happen. This article speaks to what a parent who owns a recalled stroller should do.

Parents and caretakers should be skeptical about the “voluntary” nature of this recall and the accuracy of the numbers cited – Maclaren says it received 15 reports of children placing their finger in the stroller’s hinge mechanism, resulting in 12 reports of fingertip amputations in the United States.

Parents and caretakers should also be skeptical of Maclaren’s free repair kit, which appears to consist of cloth hinge covers that snap onto the frame. Covers that easily snap in place can also be easily removed, yet the unsafe pinch points remain. From a design standpoint, a guard or cover that can be easily removed without disabling the product is inadequate. One must be concerned that the next family who inherits the stroller may be unaware of the covers’ importance and may remove them for any number of reasons. Covers may be removed once they get dirty and may not be replaced. (Doesn’t Maclaren realize that peanut butter and jelly and many other substances are inherent to this product’s expected environment of use?)

If you have a recalled Maclaren stroller:

And, after careful consideration, you want to continue to use the stroller, then you should request the hinge covers from Maclaren and only use the stroller when the hinge covers are in place;
And you are not wedded to the stroller, then you do not have to settle for the hinge covers. You should write to Maclaren – emails are good; snail mail sent certified, return receipt requested, is better; both methods are best – and request a refund. If they insist on your returning the stroller first, go ahead and do that, but request that they pay the shipping costs. Maclaren can be contacted at www.maclaren.us/recall.

If you have a recalled Maclaren stroller, and you have seen your child place a finger in the hinge mechanism:

You should report this to Maclaren and either request the hinge covers or a refund (see above);
You should also report this to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The CPSC Recall Hotline is 800-838-2772. The CPSC website is https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx.

If you have a recalled Maclaren stroller, and your child has suffered a lacerated or amputated finger or other injury from the hinge mechanism:

Do not use the stroller, with or without hinge covers;
Do not throw the stroller away, but store it in a safe, clean place;
You or an attorney should write to Maclaren and report the injury (see above);
You or an attorney should report the injury to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (see above);
You are entitled to reimbursement for your child’s medical bills (past and future) and your son or daughter is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering and disfigurement, including corrective surgery if available and indicated.

No consumer who has been injured by an unsafe product need apologize for exercising his or her legal rights. Despite the protestations of manufacturers and the insurance industry, product liability claims in the United States have led to safer roads, workplaces, schools, and homes. To illustrate, double hand controls on industrial machines prevent an operator’s hands from getting in the way of moving parts. Automobiles are now more crashworthy because of stronger structural components, padded dashboards, airbags, safety glass, seatbelts and crush zones. And children’s toys don't have small parts that can be swallowed or lead paint that can be ingested. Product liability claims pressed by consumers and their attorneys have led to these improvements.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steven Schafer

Maclaren Stroller Recall: Free Repair Kit Costs More Than Its Worth

Steven Schafer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:01:00 GMT

Maclaren says it received 15 reports of children placing their finger in the stroller’s hinge mechanism, resulting in 12 reports of fingertip amputations in the United States.

My last article focused on the purported “voluntary” aspect of the recall and questioned how Maclaren was gathering and maintaining reports of accidents and near-accidents. This article will focus on the manufacturer’s responsibility to identify and eliminate design defects so that injuries like these don’t happen. My next article will speak to what a parent who owns a recalled stroller should do.

Manufacturer’s Legal Duty. Under the law, a manufacturer is responsible for acting reasonably - or exercising "due care" - in designing, manufacturing and testing a product to make sure that the product is fit for a particular purpose. If there is an unsafe aspect to the product that results in injuries to the person using it, or someone close by, the manufacturer can be held responsible for the injuries on the basis of negligence, or for having breached express and implied warranties about a product’s fitness. A manufacturer must anticipate the environment in which its product will be used, taking into account the sophistication and knowledge of the operator or consumer, the location where a product will be used, and the foreseeable uses and even misuses to which the product may be placed. The manufacturer must design against reasonably foreseeable risks of injury in this context.

So, in the case of a children’s stroller, a manufacturer must anticipate that a child may place his or her hand or fingers on the stroller’s frame when a parent or caregiver is opening or closing the stroller. Just think of the mother with two or three children in tow, who is setting up or collapsing a stroller next to the family car in the parking lot at the mall. She has children to watch, bundles to handle, and traffic to look out for, all while she is opening and closing the stroller. There should be no possibility that the stroller’s hinge mechanism will allow a toddler’s finger to get in the way. Mom, dad, grandma or the babysitter cannot be held to the level of expertise of the design engineer and should not have to inspect the stroller to make sure that there are no areas where the child’s hands or fingers can be caught or pinched. We protect industrial workers by eliminating or covering exposed gears and moving parts on machinery; a stroller should be designed with no less concern for safety.

Manufacturer’s Design Responsibilities. Hazard and risk analysis has become a staple of mechanical engineering. When studying safety engineering, students learn the so-called "safety hierarchy" of design, which is intended to identify, and then eliminate or reduce the risk of injury from a hazard posed by a product.

The design engineer must identify hazards (such as a pinch point, where parts of a product can catch a part of the body and cause injury) and evaluate the chances of an injury occurring, and the severity of the injury.

Once a risk of injury has been identified, the design engineer should try to eliminate the risk entirely, by reconfiguring that part of the product. When it comes to a hinge mechanism into which little fingers can fit, perhaps the space is made larger so that fingers cannot be pinched when the hinge is opened and closed. Or, perhaps the space is made smaller so that a finger cannot possibly fit into the space.

If the risk of injury cannot be eliminated by a change in design, then the engineer should try to guard against the risk. A permanent, non-removable hinge cover might work in this instance.

If the risk of injury cannot be eliminated by a design change, or guarded against by a cover, then the designer may resort to warnings or instructions. There is a science to proper warnings and instructions. They must first alert the user with attention getting words that are commensurate to the hazard (such as DANGER in yellow against a black background, or WARNING in red and white, or CAUTION in orange and black). A proper warning should then alert the user to the hazard (such as "In-Running Rollers" or "Sharp Blade"). A proper warning should tell the user what to do or what not to do (like "Keep Hands Away from Opening") to avoid the hazard. And finally, a proper warning should tell the user the consequences if he or she disregards the warning (for example, "Placing Hands in Vicinity of In-Running Rollers May Result in Amputation or Other Serious Injury").

Legalistic warnings and instructions may give the manufacturer an argument in court, but do little to communicate to the consumer the information he or she needs to use a product safely. Warnings like “Be Careful” do not communicate necessary information.

While a manufacturer might argue that warnings and instructions are unnecessary and that the hazard is obvious or a matter of common sense, a proper warning (when the hazard cannot be eliminated by a design change or when a guard or cover will not work) might say:

WARNING

AMPUTATION POINT! OPENING IN HINGE MECHANISM MAY ACCOMMODATE A CHILD’S FINGERS

KEEP YOUR CHILD’S HANDS AND FINGERS OFF FRAME AND AWAY FROM HINGE MECHANISM WHEN OPENING AND CLOSING STROLLER

YOUR CHILD’S FINGERS MAY BE AMPUTATED OR SEVERELY CUT IF THEY ARE IN THE HINGE MECHANISM WHEN STROLLER IS OPENED OR CLOSED

Even the best warnings and instructions, however, don’t take the place of good design that eliminates the hazard and risk of injury altogether, and they don't substitute for a guard when the good design cannot eliminate the hazard and risk of injury.

Maclaren has chosen to guard against the risk of injury by offering a "free repair kit," consisting of hinge covers for the pinch points where a child's finger can be cut or amputated. The hinge covers appear to be made of cloth and snap onto the frame. A cover that easily snaps in place can also be easily removed, yet the unsafe pinch point remains. From a design standpoint, a guard or cover that can be easily removed without disabling the product, is inadequate. One must be concerned for the next family that inherits the stroller and who may be unaware of the covers’ importance, or that the covers will be removed once they get dirty. (Doesn’t Maclaren realize that peanut butter and jelly and many other substances are inherent to this product’s expected environment of use?)

The "free repair kit" might be worth just what Maclaren is charging for it, and a lot less than the $2 per stroller that Maclaren is reportedly spending on the kit.

What should a parent do?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steven Schafer

Maclaren's "Voluntary" Recall of Strollers May Not Be So Voluntary

Steven Schafer — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:26:50 GMT

On November 9, 2009, Maclaren USA, the American subsidiary of the British manufacturer of umbrella strollers and other children’s products, “voluntarily” recalled about 1 million strollers because of reports of children suffering fingertip lacerations and amputations. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, “The stroller’s hinge mechanism poses a fingertip amputation and laceration hazard to the child when the consumer is unfolding [or] opening the stroller.”

This article will focus on the “voluntary” aspect of the recall. Future articles will focus on the manufacturer’s responsibility to identify and eliminate design defects so that injuries like these don’t happen, and what a parent who owns a recalled stroller should do.

Maclaren says it received 15 reports of children placing their finger in the stroller’s hinge mechanism, resulting in 12 reports of fingertip amputations in the United States.

This recall is about as voluntary as Bernard Madoff’s plea bargain, and Maclaren’s press release about as sincere as Madoff’s confession. The Consumer Product Safety Act requires a manufacturer to report consumer complaints to the CPSC where the manufacturer has notice that one of its products contains a defect that amounts to a substantial product hazard or poses an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.

The CPSC can order a manufacturer to notify its customers and the public and to recall the product, and it can impose hefty fines if a manufacturer has withheld information, not acted quickly enough in reporting its knowledge to the CPSC, or otherwise placed the public at risk. Faced with an imminent government order, a manufacturer often decides that it’s better to cooperate with the CPSC, “voluntarily” recall a product, and offer a repair kit to consumers, than wait for the CPSC to impose harsher action. By cooperating in a “voluntary” recall, a manufacturer can spin its explanation to avert a public relations disaster and can negotiate fines.

Many consumers expressed dismay that 12 children suffered partial finger amputations before Maclaren did anything to prevent more injuries. What hasn’t yet been answered, however, is when Maclaren first learned of a child with a partial finger amputation, or first learned that a child was almost injured (making an actual injury all the more foreseeable), and how long it took the company to report the product defect to the CPSC. We also don’t know how Maclaren obtains and maintains its information on injuries.

Maclaren’s press release reaffirmed the company’s “unwavering commitment to child safety.” One would think a safety conscious manufacturer would want to provide equal protection to children in other countries, yet until consumer outrage sunk in, Maclaren initially was making the repair kits available only for U.S. consumers. The CPSC’s authority does not extend overseas, so Maclaren’s sense of voluntariness didn’t initially extend to countries that lack the United States regulatory protections, even though the strollers sold elsewhere are identical to those sold here. Maclaren says that it has received fewer reports of such injuries in the UK. Could it be that British tikes are themselves more safety conscious? Or, perhaps their fingers are less valuable than those of American children.

From product liability cases we have handled, this writer knows that it is not unusual for manufacturers to set up elaborate mechanisms to avoid learning or disclosing information about product injuries. When injuries do come to the attention of product manufacturers, many record the information in language that emphasizes consumer error in operating the product, not design defects that should have been identified and eliminated by the manufacturer. Sometimes injuries are assigned innocuous injury classifications to mask what really happened.

In the case of one children’s product made by another company, we found that the manufacturer instructed its customer service representatives who fielded consumer telephone calls not to ask if anyone was injured when a product failed. If a parent or caregiver reported an injury, the person was immediately transferred to another department that recorded basic information, but didn’t ask questions to clarify the severity of injuries or how they happened. The consumer wasn’t told that hundreds of other customers experienced the same problem. Reports were toned down to make the events seem innocuous and emphasis was placed on the parent or caregiver not properly operating the product, not on the inherent defect in the product’s design. Then, reports were not passed on to the regulatory people who were responsible for reporting the injuries to the CPSC. Years went by before the company reported the injuries to the CPSC.

This writer has learned of one little girl who suffered a partial index finger amputation long before Maclaren announced the “voluntary” recall. The child’s mother spoke to a customer service representative at Maclaren, but never received a response from the company. It’s doubtful that her complaint was included in the fifteen reports acknowledged by Maclaren.

So, we are left asking, what did Maclaren know and when did the company know it?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steven Schafer

Contaminated Dairy May Have Caused 3 Deaths

Jenny Albano — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:36:55 GMT

Health officials claim that the milk from Whittier Farms dairy in Shrewsbury has caused the death of 3 elderly men and caused one women to miscarriage since last June because the milk was contaminated with listeria.

Whittier Farms is popular because they still deliver milk to your door in glass bottles and the milk does not contain added hormones.

All were infected with listeria, which is extremely rare in pasteurized milk. It is more often found in raw foods, such as uncooked meat and vegetables, and processed foods such as soft cheeses and cold cuts. The outbreak is believed to be only the third time listeria has ever been linked to pasteurized milk in the United States. Listeria bacteria are often present in manure and are commonly found in soil and water. Pasteurization is supposed to kill listeria.

Tests that were completed at the plant do not show anything wrong with the pasteurization process and now health investigators are testing the cooling and bottling machinery for the source of the problem. So far the investigators have taken around 70 samples from all over the plant.

The dairy, which also has a 500-acre farm in Sutton, has stopped all operations until the source of the bacteria is found and the problem is rectified. The Whittier family has sent letters to its customers saying they are "extremely concerned about the situation" and are cooperating fully with authorities.

Symptoms of listeria include fever, nausea and diarrhea. Ingesting this kind of bacteria can cause serious illness or death in pregnant women, newborns, the elderly and patients who have compromised immune systems.

DNA testing on the four patients with listeria from Whittier Farms showed they all carried the same strain of listeria, which suggests that the bacteria had a common source. Once this was found, the families of the deceased were interviewed to help pinpoint the source.

At about the same time, a health worker at the hospital where an 88-year-old man was diagnosed with listeriosis learned that the man had had unpasteurized cider and coffee-flavored pasteurized milk. When both drinks were tested, only the pasteurized milk -- from Whittier Farms -- came back positive. Officials then found listeria in an unopened container at the dairy's store in Shrewsbury.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

The Bon-Ton Department Stores Inc. is Recalling Hooded Jackets Due to Strangulation Hazard from Drawstrings

Jenny Albano — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:14:10 GMT

The Bon-Ton Department Stores Inc., in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling about 3,240 Children's fleece hooded zip-up jackets with neck drawstrings because the drawstring could pose a strangulation hazard to children.

In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

The recalled hoodies are for boys from ages 8-20 and are under the brand-name "Burnside". The jackets come in sizes from small through x-large and have multiple designs of the front. The recalled product will have the "RN # 39209" labeled on the tag of the jacket.
tag.

The recalled items were available at Bon-Ton, Bergner's, Boston Store, Carson Pirie Scott, Elder-Beerman, Herberger's and Younkers retail stores across the U.S. and Parisian stores in the Detroit from August 2007 to October 2007. So far there have been no reported injuries from the drawstrings.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Vintage Chocolates Inc. Recalls Soy Milk Chocolate Bars

Jenny Albano — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:11:07 GMT

Vintage Chocolates Inc., in conjunction with the FDA, is recalling 4,455 soy milk chocolate bars because they may contain undeclared traces of milk. Anyone that is allergic or sensitive to milk and consumes this product could run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions.

The bar is presented in a beige cardboard package of 3.5 oz, depicting tree with a green band on top stating "43% Soy milk or 38% Soy milk". On the back of the package one would find; the following information: UPC: 797148000398.

One injury was reported to the company which sparked an analysis of the formulation, and product analysis to determine the origin of the problem. The company has concluded from the investigation that the traces of milk in the product came from cross contamination issue during processing.

The one reported injury was from a child who received rashes after eating the soy chocolate bar. The product was distributed in 15 states and was available in retail stores as well as on the company's website: echocolates.com

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

FDA Announces Safety Review of FosaMax, Boniva Class of Drugs

Courtney Mills — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:06:34 GMT

The FDA released an 'early communication' to the public of an ongoing safety review regarding the drug class bisphosphonates due to potential atrial fibrillation with the use of this class of drug. The agency has requested that further data be obtained in order to assay the merits of the tendency.

Bisphosphonates are a class of drug prescribed by physicians to treat osteoporosis. These medications are sold on the market under the brand names Fosamax, Actonel, Reclast, and Boniva, and they retard the rate of bone thinning in adult men and women. These drugs also reduce the likelihood of suffering from broken bones.

The FDA made this announcement after a study in the New England Journal of Medicine this spring revealed more cases of serious atrial fibrillation associated with older female patients treated with Fosamax or Reclast than those treated with a placebo.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

E. Coli Hamburgers Make 21 Sick in 8 States

Courtney Mills — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:42:56 GMT

The CDC has announced that at least twenty-one people in eight states are on record as having fallen ill in the latest E. coli scare after having consumed hamburger meat tainted with E. coli bacteria.

According to reports, CDC spokeswoman Lola Russell said three cases - two in New York and one in Florida - are confirmed as being linked to the ground beef, with the other 18 cases possibly linked to the recall. The boxes recalled carry the number "Est. 9748" inside the USDA mark of inspection and were produced on June 22, July 12 or July 23.

The purveyor of the tainted product is New Jersey-based Topps Meat Company, the largest supplier of frozen patties in the United States. The company recalled this week over 330,000 lbs of frozen beef patties as a result of the E. coli outbreak.

The line of products recalled by Topps Meat Company includes 10-lb boxes of Butchers Best All-Beef patties, Kohler Foods burgers, 10-lb boxes of Sand Castle Fine Meat, 2-lb boxes of Topps 100% Ground Beef Hamburgers, and 3-lb boxes of Topps 100% Ground Beef Hamburgers. The boxes recalled carry the number "Est. 9748" inside the USDA mark of inspection and were produced on June 22, July 12 or July 23.

Topps meat products are distributed in Wal-Mart stores across the country.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Tainted Beef Sold in Shaw's Supermarkets Recalled

Ken Margolin — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:15:00 GMT

Ground beef patties sold under the Shaw's supermarket label, were recalled yesterday. According to Fairbank Farms, the company that sells the beef to Shaws, packages with the tainted beef could have been purchased in New England between 7 a.m. - 11 a.m., on Wednesday, September 5, 2007. The 85% lean beef was sold in 1.33 pound packages with the establishment number "Est. 492. The beef was tainted with an ecoli bacteria that can cause illness ranging from stomach cramps to the rare death from kidney failure. Fairbanks Farms reports that while most of the tainted beef was located before it left the warehouse, some packages were distributed to Shaws supermarkets in each of the New England states. According to the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the type of ecoli found in the recalled beef, kills more than 60 Americans each year.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Hasbro Easy Bake Oven Recall

Ken Margolin — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:50:00 GMT

Underscoring the continued hazards to children, created by poorly designed toys, Hasbro recalled its Easy Bake Oven. Nearly a million of the toys have been manufactured. The oven is intended for young children. It is a small plastic replica of a real oven, electrically powered, that heats up internally to as hot as 400 degrees farenheit! No surprise - children have been getting burned - and getting fingers caught, in alarming numbers. There was a recall of the toy earlier in the year, but spurred by its popularity, Hasbro offered repair kits. The kits didn't work. Since the recall Hasbro has received nearly 250 reports of caught fingers, 77 reports of burns, including second and third degree burns, and one partial amputation of a little girl's finger. Great toy. Let's see if it is put to rest for good.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin