Free Defective Products/Products Liability Articles | Free Defective Products/Products Liability Legal Articles

LawInfo's Top 10 List - The 10 Most Dangerous Recalled Toys

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:13:26 GMT

More and more frequently, dangerous, defective toys—and their subsequent recall—continue to make headlines. Although dangerous toys have been produced for decades, some to have hit the market within the last 20 years have been clearly more dangerous, and deadly, than their predecessors—leading to recalls and class actions lawsuits against top toy manufacturers and sellers of these unsafe toys.

The following is LawInfo’s list of the top ten most dangerous recalled toys of the last two decades.

Aqua Dots

Produced by the Spin Master Corporation, Aqua Dots were small, colorful beads that were part of a multidimensional design craft kit. However, the chemical compound of these beads included the then unknown "date rape" drug gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB). Children who licked and ingested Aqua Dots were subject to respiratory depression, seizures and often became comatose. One child was reportedly hospitalized for five days after swallowing an Aqua Dot. Spin Master Corporation recalled 4.2 million units and suspended the toy from the market in November 2007.

Mini hammocks from EZ Sales

After 12 confirmed fatalities by asphyxiation (of children aged 5-17) and numerous reports of near-death entrapments, these nylon mini hammocks came to be known as “death cocoons.” The culprit behind the flawed design was the lack of spreader bars at either end, which would keep the hammock open when children were swinging and/or resting in them. EZ Sales recalled nearly 3 million of these products and suspended sales indefinitely in August 1996.

Fisher-Price Power Wheels Motorcycle

These very real motorbikes looked like a shiny motorized toy, but in fact were quite dangerous machines. On certain models, the accelerator jammed and became stuck, leading to crashes and accident-inflicted injuries such as lacerations, sprains and broken bones. Fisher-Price recalled 218,000 Power Wheels motorcycles and took the “toy” off the market in August 2000.

Sky Dancers Flying Dolls

These Barbie-inspired 9-inch hard plastic dolls were designed to fly but lacked reliable controls, thus launching with incredible speed in unpredictable directions. After 150 reported injuries, including temporary blindness, broken ribs and teeth, mild concussions and lacerations, almost 9 million units were recalled by manufacturer Galoob Toys and all sales suspended in June 2000.

Easy-Bake Oven by Hasbro

Easy-Bake toy ovens have been around since the 1950’s, but this Hasbro model had a clear defect: the front-loading oven would trap tiny hands that were reaching inside of it—inflicting some 77 second- and third-degree burns to children’s hands and fingers, including one 5-year-old girl who required a partial finger amputation. Hasbro recalled the oven and stopped distribution in July 2007.

Jarts Lawn Darts

Jarts (a variable of lawn darts) were heavy, metal projectiles that sharply pierced whatever they struck —including many children. Lawn darts were responsible for 6,700 injuries and four deaths in the 1980’s and were permanently banned (in all varieties) in 1988.

Snacktime Cabbage Patch Dolls by Mattel

These models from the widely sought-after Cabbage Patch line of the 1980’s and 90’s had automated jaws that would “chew” whatever was placed in its mouth. The problem: the doll didn’t stop chewing. After 35 tiny fingers were reportedly injured by the chomping doll, Mattel removed the dolls from retail shelves in 1997 (although never formally “recalling” the product), and offered 500,000 customers a full refund.

Battlestar Galactica Missile Launcher

In 1978, Mattel launched a series of Battlestar Galactica toy missile launchers known individually as the Viper, the Cylon Raider, the Scarab and the Stellar Probe. In 1979, a child reportedly died after choking on one of the missile launchers—prompting Mattel to recall all BSG models and suspend production.

The Chicken Limbo Party Game

Manufactured by Milton Bradley, The Chicken Limbo Party game lacked sturdy support poles, therefore with the slightest touch, the entire apparatus could shake and collapse on participating children (and any bystanders). After 46 reports of the game collapsing and causing subsequent injuries such as bumps, bruises, welts, chipped teeth, and one fractured foot, Milton Bradley recalled 461,000 CLP units and suspended all sales in 2006.

Clackers

Clackers, which were marketed under a multitude of other names, consisted of two glass-like acrylic balls, each about the size of plum, which swung on either end of a string. The idea was to tug on the middle of the string until the balls swung faster and faster, smacking each other above and below your hand until the motion formed a stunning arc. However, being made of glass, the balls were heavy—leading to numerous reports of injury when they hit children’s faces, and when the balls themselves occasionally shattered, causing lacerations. Clackers were pulled from the shelves in 1981 and, later that year, a mandate was issued that any future product(s) be made with foam balls and nylon cords.

For more information on dangerous toys, contact a defective product attorney today.

Inadequate Labels and Warnings

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:09:02 GMT

A person who is hurt by a defective product may be entitled to compensation in a products liability lawsuit. There are many ways in which a product can be defective. An error could have been made in the product design or in the manufacturing process, for example. However, a product can also be defective if adequate warnings are not provided to the consumer about its use.

What is an Inadequate Warning or an Inadequate Label?

Most jurisdictions require a manufacturer to include proper warnings on labels, packaging or packaging inserts if the product presents a danger that is known or should be known to the manufacturer. Many courts consider whether the product is dangerous, whether the danger is known or should be known to the manufacturer, whether the danger is present if a consumer uses the product as directed and for its intended purpose and whether the danger is obvious or well known to the user. For example, it may not be necessary to label a set of steak knives with a warning that they are sharp and can be dangerous if they are used on people since that danger is obvious and well known to steak knife users. However, it is legally necessary to include a list of potential side effects on medications since the potential dangers of pharmaceutical drugs are not obvious or well known to most consumers.

If the above conditions are met, then a manufacturer has a duty to provide adequate warnings to consumers. The term “adequate” means different things in different jurisdictions. Generally, courts will look to see if the warning was placed in an obvious place to be seen by consumers, was in language that was able to be easily understood by most consumers and was sufficient to warn consumers of all known side effects.

The lack of an adequate warning can make a product unreasonably safe. If you use a product that failed to come with an adequate warning and you were hurt by that product then you may file a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. The statute of limitations in your jurisdiction limits the amount of time that you have to file a lawsuit so it is important to contact a products liability attorney as soon as possible after your injury.

Potential Damages in a Products Liability Lawsuit

The potential damages in a products liability lawsuit that is filed on the basis of a manufacturer failing to provide an adequate warning of the product’s danger include compensation for past and future medical bills, lost income if you lost time from work because of your injuries, rehabilitation costs and compensation for pain and suffering. Some jurisdictions may also allow you to collect punitive damages from the defendant if the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate warning was particularly egregious.

Consumers have the right to use products safely and to know of all potential dangers before they decide to use a product. If the manufacturer of a product has failed to provide you with adequate warnings so that you can make an informed decision about whether or not to use the product then you may decide to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer and seek appropriate damages.

Legal Negligence

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:01:09 GMT

Negligence is a term that is commonly used to mean that someone did not act with the appropriate level of care. However, when negligence is used as a legal term it has a very specific definition and in order for a person who sustained injuries in an accident to recover damages, each element of the legal definition of negligence must be satisfied.

Generally, there are four elements that a plaintiff must prove in a negligence case. Those elements include:

· Duty of Care: A plaintiff first needs to establish that the defendant had a legal responsibility to exercise a reasonable degree of care toward the victim. The way in which you determine whether a defendant owed the victim a duty of care depends on the jurisdiction in which the case is heard. Some states have adopted a “foreseeability” test to determine if a duty of care exists. In these states, the defendant owed the victim a duty of care if harm to the victim was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions. Other states determine whether a duty of care exists by applying a balancing test that considers the forseeability of the harm, the degree of certainty that someone will be harmed, the burden that would be placed on the defendant if he tried to prevent the harm and other similar factors.

· Breach of the Duty of Care: Once a duty of care is established, the plaintiff must prove that duty of care was breached. Typically, the duty of care is breached if the defendant knew what the consequences of his or her actions would be or failed to act like a reasonable person would have acted given the circumstances. The reasonable person standard considers both the location and qualifications of the defendant. For example, a cardiologist is compared to other cardiologists in his jurisdiction when the court is deciding if he failed to act like a reasonable person would act in a medical malpractice action.

· Causation: If a defendant is found to have breached his or her duty of care, the next step for the plaintiff is to prove that the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s injuries which would not have happened but for the defendant’s actions. For example, if the victim was hurt in a car accident then the victim’s injuries must have occurred because of the defendant’s breach of his duty of care (for example, speeding) and not for any other reason (for example, the victim suffered a heart attack while driving).

· Damages: If a plaintiff is successful in proving that the defendant had a duty of care that was breached and that caused the victim’s damages then the plaintiff must prove that he or she is entitled to damages pursuant to state law.

It is important to remember that negligence cases are most often tried in state court and that while many jurisdictions follow the basic definition of negligence provided above, every jurisdiction has its own laws about what constitutes legal negligence. Therefore, it is important to contact a personal injury attorney in the state in which your accident occurred if you believe that you might have a negligence case in that jurisdiction.