Injured - The FindLaw Accident, Injury and Tort Law Blog

Defective Products and Products Liability

Defective Products and Products Liability lawsuits involve injuries from the use of a defective or dangerous product. This could arise in the case of a defect in a car which causes an accident, a burn sustained from using a beauty product, or even food poisoning. The manufacturer or seller is held liable to any party who foreseeably could have been injured by the product. There are several types of defects, including defect in the manufacturing, defect in the design, defect in the warning (improper labeling) and marketing defects (insufficient instructions).

Usually, a products liability lawsuit is not easy and involves testimony from experts. Since the law of products liability varies from state-to-state, similar cases in different states might not yield the same results.


Recently in Defective Products / Products Liability Category

According to the Centers for Disease Control, opioid overdoses claim 91 lives per day in America, and the number of overdose deaths associated with opioids has quadrupled since 1999. Ohio has been hit especially hard. According to a new lawsuit filed by the state's attorney general against five drug manufacturers, opioid-related drug overdoses in Ohio have skyrocketed 642 percent in the last 15 years.

Ohio's is the latest in a long line of local litigation seeking to hold opioid manufacturers responsible for a nationwide crisis.

A Florida woman was awarded $100,000 by a jury in her case against Starbucks stemming from a 2014 hot coffee spill injury. Joanne Mogavero, a 43-year-old mother of three, filed suit after the lid to her coffee popped off while it was being handed to her from the Starbucks drive-thru window. The 20-oz.190 degree coffee spilled in her lap, resulting in first and second degree burns.

Of the $100,000 jury verdict, a little over $15,000 was awarded for the actual medical expenses, while the remainder was awarded for pain and suffering. Starbucks has stated that the company is considering appealing the verdict.

A current Colorado civil wrongful death case involving extra potent marijuana candy has been attracting national attention since 2014. The incident involved a Colorado man who had eaten a physically small amount of very potent marijuana candy, started hallucinating, then shot and killed his wife. In the criminal case, the defense attempted to claim temporary insanity caused by the pot candy. However, the defendant was sentenced to 30 years for the murder.

In the civil wrongful death case, it is alleged that the marijuana candy played a part in the murder. The children have made legal claims against the pot candy maker, and have reportedly settled claims with the store where it was purchased. However, for the candy maker, things have taken a turn for the worse, as their insurance carrier has filed in federal court seeking to be relieved from providing coverage.

Johnson & Johnson has been inundated with lawsuits concerning its baby powder and the link to ovarian cancer. One Alabama firm said it had 867 cases pending against the health products giant, and over 1,400 plaintiffs had collectively filed 20 lawsuits in St. Louis alone.

It was a St. Louis jury that awarded Lois Slemp over $110 million after connecting her use of Johnson & Johnson's Shower-to-Shower and Baby Powder products to her ovarian cancer. The verdict adds to the $197 million the company was hit with in three verdicts last year.

While children and adults can both find bounce houses to be tremendous amounts of fun, like trampolines, there’s a serious risk of injury when things go wrong. A recent injury lawsuit filed in New York State by the parents of two children injured in a bounce house is a reminder of how often these injuries occur.

The parents of the two injured kids are bringing claims against the owner of the bounce house, the toy store that sold it, and the manufacturer. Like many other bounce house injuries, the structure was set up properly, including the use of straps that secure the structure to ground with spikes. However, when a strong gust of wind came, the structure was tossed about, and flung over 10 feet into the air, causing the kids to suffer injuries when they fell to the ground.

Vaping, or using e-cigarettes, seems to be continually increasing in popularity as the technology continues to improve. However, the number of e-cigarette explosion injury claims are also on the rise. In 2015, national headlines were made when a jury returned a $1.9 million verdict for a woman injured by an exploding e-cigarette.

Generally, the cases involve an individual who is injured as a result of an e-cigarette’s battery exploding during charging or use. When the batteries explode, not only do sparks fly, but toxic battery acid can be projected out causing even worse burns. Frequently, individuals holding an e-cigarette, or having it in their pocket, will suffer second or third degree burns as a result of the exploding batteries. Recently, a lawsuit was filed over an exploding e-cigarette device where the explosion was caught on a store’s surveillance camera.

Americans love the gym. Whether we miss the activity and exercise from recess and gym class in school or we're wistful for the waistline from our younger days, millions of us are spending millions of hours in the gym and millions of dollars on gym memberships. And we expect that gyms will show the same dedication to their equipment -- buying the best and maintaining equipment in the best condition.

But what happens when that doesn't happen? Are gyms liable for injuries caused by faulty equipment?

Unfortunately for one Kentucky teen, playing sword baseball with a water-bottle resulted in a severe accidental injury that is now the subject of a product liability lawsuit. While the teen was playing with friends by using a sword as a bat, and hitting plastic water bottles with it, the sword came apart, and the blade struck the teen in the head.

The teen was in a coma for over a month, and had to undergo numerous medical procedures. Despite all this already, it is expected that his recovery will require lifelong medical care. His parents have filed a lawsuit against the sword’s manufacturer as a result of a product defect.

Just six short months ago, U.S. District Judge Clay Land blasted plaintiffs' attorneys in vaginal mesh lawsuits for, as he put it, filing cases "that probably should never have been brought in the first place." Land specifically called out lawyers piggybacking on litigation against Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary Mentor Corporation, makers of ObTape, and filing claims late: "Similarly, if you did not file the action until eight years after your client's doctor excised the Obtape and informed your client that it was causing her problems, you may face a serious challenge showing cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed."

Judge Land will probably not be too pleased with a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which just revived injury claims by 12 Minnesota women against Mentor that a lower court had thrown out for being filed past the statute of limitations.

Although cars still can't simply fly over traffic, technology has gotten us to the point where driverless cars are a reality. Despite the promise of this technology leading to a future without car accidents, driverless cars have a long way to go. Since the limited deployment and testing of autonomous cars started recently, there have been numerous accidents, and even a fatal crash, that have been attributed to auto-pilot modes or driverless vehicle automation.

These crashes have led many folks to wonder: who's responsible for a driverless car crash? While the answer may seem to be as simple as asking who owns the vehicle, this might not actually be the case, or provide adequate relief in jurisdictions, like California, that limit vehicle owner liability.