Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - products

Toys ‘R’ Us to Keep Things Safe with "The Great Trade-In Program"

Greg Webb — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:25:10 GMT

In the August 26, 2009 Charlottesville section of Craigslist.com, there were 71 new posts in the "Baby+Kids" subsection of "For Sale." Going solely off of the post titles (admittedly, I disregarded a thorough analysis of each post’s contents for the sake of search-brevity), out of those 71 posts, 3 were for strollers (4%), 2 were for car seats (3%), 2 were for highchairs (3%), 8 were for swing sets/play sets (12%), 5 were for cribs/beds/bassinets (7%), 12 were for clothes (17%), 2 were for food (3%), 5 were for bikes/scooters/walkers (7%), 10 were for miscellaneous toys (14%), and 2 were for child backpacks/harnesses (for carrying children) (3%). That comes to 73%. In addition, there were three posts for "Want to Buy" items, including a "Kelty Convertible Backpack/stroller," a "dresser and booster seat" and an "infant car seat" (4%). The remaining posts were for nondescript items or general mass toy/baby item sales.

Now this is not intended to pass judgment on those posters, nor is it to discredit the helpfulness of the Craigslist service; but those figures demonstrate the fact that, beyond the traditional familial "passing down of the crib," people – strangers, rather – are selling and buying used children’s items to and from one another daily. And that is just in Charlottesville, a small city. Compared to New York City, which had a whopping 769 listings on Wednesday the 26^th, Charlottesville’s 71 posts are, relatively speaking, small potatoes.

From this limited yet telling research, it is safe to surmise that between the 71 posts in Charlottesville and the 769 posts in New York City, there is at least some risk involved in these exchanges based on the volume and frequency in which they are made. This goes said under the full understanding that in any Craigslist transaction there is an implied "risk" involved.

However, the point remains that the acquisition or requesting of used children’s items is a less than surefire way to ensure the safety of one’s child. In an attempt to prevent such exchanges, Toys ‘R’ Us and Babies ‘R’ Us will be offering a trade-in program for parents looking to unload old or used children’s items in exchange for a 20% discount toward the purchase of new items in the same categories.

Jerry Storch, chairman and chief executive of the Wayne, N.J. company, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal, saying, "We feel it's critical to get these older products out of the chain of commerce."

This exchange program is at least partially influenced by the constant updating of the quality control standards imposed on the industry. Requirements and regulations are always being changed, and older products that may not have been held to the same standards as products currently on the market are not only potentially more dangerous, but they’re also more susceptible to being traded and/or resold by previous owners who don’t need them anymore. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and safety advocacy groups seem to agree, urging people to be aware of the potential dangers in buying and selling old and used items. Their concerns are only reinforced by the dramatic increase in recalls over the years, with 563 product recalls having been issued in 2008, an increase of 162 from 2005.

The event, called "The Great Trade-In," will run from August 28 until September 20. Products eligible will include strollers, bassinets, travel systems, play yards and high chairs – 29% of August 26^’s Craigslist listings in Charlottesville.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Bill Will Hold Foreign Companies Accountable For Defective Products

Greg Webb — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:00:00 GMT

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2009, a bipartisan bill that was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate, aims to help victims of tainted Chinese drywall hold foreign manufacturers more accountable for their defective products. The act would cut down the red tape faced by American consumers who try to sue foreign companies.

The legislation arose from a May Senate subcommittee meeting that asked how to hold foreign manufacturers accountable for their products. During the hearing, an Alabama-based home building company, Mitchell Co., described how difficult it was to get a response from a Chinese manufacturer after the manufacturer’s drywall was found to be defective. The flawed drywall gives off a sulfuric odor that some homeowners have blamed for health problems. Because Mitchell Co. was unable to formally serve notice to the Chinese manufacturer, the company was not able to get the compensation it desired.

Among its stipulations, the act calls for the manufacturer to have a representative in each state that the company does business, who could be served in any claims. It also aims to make foreign companies agree to be accountable to U.S. courts if sued. Sponsors and supporters of the bill claim this is the best way for Americans to receive justice for any defective products since foreign manufacturers typically use technical legal defenses to avoid compensation. They claim that with the profit and benefits of the American market should come accountability for defective products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Nine Companies Pay Penalty For Lead In Toys

Greg Webb — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:00:00 GMT

As punishment for violating the federal lead paint ban, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced nine children’s product manufacturers, importers and sellers, including Dollar General and Michael’s, have agreed to pay more than $500,000 in civil penalties. These penalties settle the allegations that the companies knowingly manufactured, imported, or sold toys and/or other children’s products with paint or surface coatings that contained high levels of lead. The high levels of lead found in the affected toys violated federal law due to the health risks lead poses in children.

In 1978, a federal ban was passed that prohibited children’s products from having more than .06 percent lead (by weight) in paints or surface coatings. The products involved in the settlement were recalled in 2007 and 2008, and include such items as pencil pouches, sunglasses, children’s metal jewelry, and Halloween baskets. Tests showed that the paint or surface coatings on these items contained lead in excess of .06 percent by weight. One firm even found products that contained surface coatings of nearly 60 percent lead.

It is unfortunate that these penalties are not higher. They amount to less than a slap on the wrist for these companies, whose conduct is unacceptable. Hopefully, most of the conduct was just grossly negligent, and not a true, wilfull violation of the law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Report Says Children’s Products Contain Dangerous Chemicals

Greg Webb — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:00:00 GMT

A March publication from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported finding formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, a trace contaminant of chemicals used in cosmetic products, in 55 children’s personal-care products. The Environmental Protection Agency lists these chemicals as probable human carcinogens. Seventeen of the products contained both chemicals, including Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo.

The same month, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced the “Safe Baby Products Act,” which asks the FDA to investigate chemicals used in children’s toiletries. She expressed concerns as a mother because many of the products listed in the report were products that she kept in her bathroom.

The editor of Stats.org, Trevor Butterworth, conveyed reservations about the implications of the report. Butterworth said that people are exposed to similarly low levels of these chemicals every day in food, air, and shower water, and that studies linking them to cancer are based on ingesting or inhaling large quantities of the chemicals in industrial or lab settings.

A statement from Johnson & Johnson said that all of their products meet or exceed requirements in every country in which they are sold.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Congressmen Push To Nullify Supreme Court’s Medical Device Decision

Greg Webb — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:00:00 GMT

Some members of Congress are attempting to remove a 2008 Supreme Court decision that stands as a barrier against suing medical device manufacturers. This ruling has barred patients, or their survivors, from suing manufactures of complex medical devices if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the products sale. Since this ruling, judges from around the country have cited it in dismissing cases against a wide range of manufacturers. For example, situations in which a woman was burned internally by a device that was meant to reduce menstrual bleeding, and numerous patients who claim they were injured by faulty heart implants or joints.

Recently, however, some members of Congress have decided they want to give potential plaintiffs a chance at legal action. Two House Democrats plan to reintroduce legislation that will nullify the Supreme Court Decision. A similar bill introduced in the Senate last year is also expected to be reintroduced. The legislators, as well as patient advocates, say the Supreme Court’s decision has left patients legally powerless against “spotty oversight of products” by the FDA. With the Supreme Court ruling, patients are facing a dangerous situation in which the FDA is incapable of keeping dangerous products off the market and patients cannot sue companies for restitution.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to hold hearings this session to determine whether the FDA’s process for device approval is adequate after numerous claims that it does not have the necessary resources to asses all risks that a device poses once it gets on the market. Opposition to the legislation claims the FDA is the appropriate body to set national safety standards and allowing juries to undermine its decisions will hinder product innovation.

Many believe the Supreme Court’s decision does not reflect the unpredictability of the FDA review process. Recently, for example, when doctors extracted a faulty electronic cable from a patient’s heart, a vessel was punctured causing excessive bleeding. The patient died two days later and a lawsuit against Medtronic, the manufacturer of the faulty device, was thrown out. This cable, called a lead, was never tested in humans before it went on the market and before Medtronic could recall the product, it was implanted in more than 235,000 patients; five of these patients may have died due to the problem.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether it should give the same type of legal protections to drug manufacturers in the case of Wyeth v. Levine. Hopefully, the Court will not grant such broad-reaching immunity for drug manufacturers. Drug companies, like all persons and entities in our country, should be held responsible for wrongful conduct, especially when such conduct sacrifices safety in the name of profits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Banned Chemical in Toys Still in Marketplace

Greg Webb — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:00:00 GMT

Children’s products containing the recently banned chemical phthalate already in stores and warehouses will be allowed to remain in the marketplace, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in a decision issued November 18.

The ban, passed in August, is supposed to remain in effect until a scientific review is complete. However, the decision issued by CPSC’s general counsel Cheryl Falvey, means it will be illegal to sell products made after the ban is in place February 10, 2009 that contain types of phthalates, chemicals used in soft plastic linked to reproductive problems. Products made before February 10 will be legal to sell, even after the ban takes effect.

“That’s obviously not what was intended,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families. However, the way the law is written, the ban must be prospective, said Julie Vallese, CPSC spokeswoman. To find out whether a product was made before or after the ban, consumers can call the manufacturer, said Vallese.

Manufacturers believe the CPSC made the right decision. They would have had to spend thousands of dollars on testing for the chemicals. Kathleen McHugh, president of the American Specialty Toy Retailing Association, which also represents small toymakers, was pleased “because there is dispute about whether those phthalates are harmful, and what are they going to replace them with.”

The new law contains other requirements such as new limits on lead and mandatory testing and certification that are leaving companies in the dark. Though there was a series of public forums hosted by the CPSC, businesses are still asking for more specific guidance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Additional Crib Dangers May Not be Addressed by Recent Recalls

Greg Webb — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:23:36 GMT

In October, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a recall on 1.6 million Delta Enterprise Corp. cribs, but those cribs that had been fixed by the recall may not be safe after all. The Chicago Tribune reviewed government documents and found another 19 instances of hazards on the Delta cribs, all of which were different from those affected by the recall.

Cribs have turned out to be one of the most deadly nursery products, though they are designed for a baby to be left unattended for hours at a time. One small missing or broken part could lead to injury or death. In the 1970s and 80s, two fixes helped reduce the number of deaths from cribs: lessening the distance between side slats, and removing corner posts that could snag babies’ clothing, leading to strangulation. The problems with cribs today come from both the complexity of cribs and the shift to manufacturing cribs abroad. Many cribs make the transition from cribs to toddler beds to adult beds, which may add convenience but also involves more moving parts which can become worn down or lost. In addition, manufacturing cribs overseas has resulted in low or no quality control at those facilities.

A major problem with crib assembly is inadequate instructions and designs that allow parents to inadvertently assemble the product in dangerous ways. CPSC engineer Patty Hackett said “Some of the instructions are worthless. I’ve seen cribs mis-assembled and still operate. That’s what scares me.” One example is the Delta Athens crib, which allows parents to install the stabilizer bar upside down but still function. The stabilizer bar holds the crib together and supports the mattress platform. The Myhra family experienced a frightening incident with their Delta Athens crib when nine-month old Sabrina began crying from her crib, and mother Cari walked in to find one end of the crib mattress had fallen to the floor and Sabrina clinging to the crib sheet to avoid getting trapped between the mattress and the crib frame. Their crib’s stabilizer bar had been installed upside down, but the crib looked normal with the bar that way.

The mattress problem is not an isolated incident. Delta is aware of complaints about its mattress supports and is working with the CPSC on the issue. Their company position is that “when properly assembled, the cribs are absolutely safe,” said spokesman Jack Gutt. However, commission records show that the mattress problem is not solely caused by incorrect assembly. In 2002, the bottom of a one-year-old boy’s Delta Luv crib collapsed, which was caused by a wood joint that failed “possibly caused by the lack of sufficient glue.” In 2004, a two-year-old girl was trapped after a rivet on the mattress support failed. Luckily both children survived. These are just a few of many incidents, according to CPSC reports.

The CPSC staff has challenged the regulatory system instituted under President Reagan, which forces them to defer to voluntary standards that are controlled by manufacturers. They urged commissioners to bypass the process and move toward federally mandated safety regulations because the current standards “are inadequate to prevent entrapment deaths and injuries of young children.” Earlier this month, commissioners agreed.

Consumer demand for convenience and low prices have prompted companies to look to overseas factories for cheaper materials and labor. However, this choice may sacrifice quality and safety. Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety at the Consumer Federation of America, asked, “Is the quest to produce lower-cost cribs leading to a sacrifice on the quality of the wood and other parts? They are making their product overseas, so they’re getting the benefit, but they’re not taking additional measures to deal with increased risk.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Bush Administration And Congress Renew Steps In Ensuring Consumer Product Safety

Greg Webb — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:51:21 GMT

With the importation of many cheap goods, along with the weakness of the nation's regulatory system, millions of products were recalled last year. In the past, the Bush administration has had little motivation in trying to make regulation industries, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), up to date, ignoring the shrinking staff and out of date technology. Now, however, with the surge in tainted products, the administration and Congress are finally trying to ensure the safety of imports to consumers of all ages. For the first time, the CPSC will have full-time inspectors posted at all major U.S. ports. Congress is also close to approving a comprehensive reform of the commission, its first in almost two decades. These new port inspectors, expected to number about fifty in all, will be able to study sophisticated customs data and also be able to examine suspicious cargo. Although they will be inspecting thousands of products, inspectors would never be able to sift through the millions of products that come into the country each year. Manufacturers, individual retailers, and industries are still responsible for making sure their products are safe.

The House passed a bill to reform the CPSC and in early March the Senate passed its own bill, strengthening and improving the effort. The Senate is suggesting a requirement for a public database and website where consumers can go to register complaints and immediately find out which products are harmful. Both of the bills would raise the CPSC's funding from $63 million to $100 million annually, and increase the fines for reselling tainted products from $1.8 million to $10 million. It has also been mentioned that the bill should include protection for whistleblowers, ban lead in toys completely, give states more authority to enforce federal laws, and include a requirement that all children's products must be certified by commission-approved laboratories.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

MEGA Brands Issues Giant Recall On Magtastik, Magnetix Jr., and MagnaMan Toys

Greg Webb — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:10:58 GMT

MEGA Brands America Inc. issued a recall on about 2.4 million Chinese-manufactured toys last week due to small magnetic components falling out of its toys, resulting in a choking hazard. MEGA Brands is recalling about 1.1 million Magtastik and Magnetix Jr. preschool toys, along with 1.3 million MagnaMan magnetic action figures. The toys were sold between January 2005 and December 2007 at toy stores throughout the country, such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, and Toys R' Us.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and MEGA Brands received nineteen complaints of magnets coming loose in Magtastic and Magnetix Jr. toys. For example, a three-year-old child had to go to the hospital to dislodge a magnet from his naval cavity. Although no one reported injuries, there were over twenty-five reports of magnets coming loose from MagnaMan figures. With forty-four complaints over the last two years regarding loose magnets, the company knew a recall was in order.

For more information about the recall, or to learn how to receive a product replacement of comparable value, you can visit www.megabloks.com or call 1-800-779-7122.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Lawsuit Filed By Family of Boy Killed by Unsecured Soccer Goal

Greg Webb — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:07:54 GMT

Charlottesville, Va. (March 17, 2008) A lawsuit was filed today in the Circuit Court of Prince William County, Virginia on behalf of the Estate of Hayden Ellias, the 10 year-old boy who died when an unsecured soccer goal fell over and killed him. The estate is represented by attorneys Shawn S. Kasserman with the Chicago, IL law firm of Corboy & Demetrio and J. Gregory Webb and Paul R. Thomson, III with the Charlottesville, VA law firm of Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel.

On May 7, 2007, Hayden Ellias attended soccer practice for the Winchester United Under 10 boys soccer team at Millbrook High School in Frederick County, Virginia. The field where the practice took place had two moveable soccer goals at opposite ends of the field. During a scrimmage with the Winchester United Under 11 girls team, Hayden, who was the goalie, was struck on the head and neck when the portable soccer goal tipped over, killing him. He is survived by his parents, Gregory and Mary Ellias, his 12 year-old brother, Colin Ellias, and his 9 year-old sister, Alanna Ellias.

The lawsuit was filed against Porter Athletic Equipment Company, manufacturers of the goal, Howard Shockey & Sons, installers of the goal, Phil Pappas, architect, OWPR, Inc., an architectural firm, and five soccer associations, the Blue Ridge Youth Soccer Association, Inc., Virginia Youth Soccer Association, Inc., Old Dominion Soccer League, Inc., United States Youth Soccer Association, Inc., and United States Soccer Federation, Inc.

The complaint alleges that each defendant knew or should have known of the dangers and hazards of moveable soccer goals and failed to protect Hayden from those dangers. Prior to Hayden's death, there were 84 other similar incidents where moveable soccer goals injured or killed a soccer player.

According to Attorney Kasserman:

This problem is known throughout the soccer industry and there are far too many cases like it each year. It is Hayden's parents' hope that this lawsuit will help change the way the soccer industry designs, installs, uses and inspects moveable soccer goals and finally give our children's safety the priority it deserves.

Attorney Webb added:

This is a tragic example of the danger facing hundreds of thousands of our children who play organized soccer each year throughout the United States. The goal that crushed Hayden is extremely top heavy and is easily tipped forward. The only feature designed to keep the goal from tipping forward are ground anchors, which all too often are not attached to the goals and not re-installed after the goals are moved.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb