Articles Posted in Products Liability

Recently, The U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy released its findings from a 2019 study regarding high levels of heavy metals in baby foods. Although some of the baby food companies voluntarily submitted their products for internal testing, several companies refused to participate. The refusal is concerning because it may indicate that there are more unsafe baby food products in Florida and throughout the United States than are known to consumers. Companies that fail to abide by health and safety standards may be liable under Florida product liability laws.

The report addressed the levels of heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury present in baby food jars, pouches, teethers, puffs, and similar items. The presence of heavy metals in baby food is not a new issue, and previous studies have published reports on the analysis of metals, such as arsenic, in many rice-based products and juices. The initial 2019 findings focused on all foods babies eat, however, the report focuses on processed baby food items. Many heavy metals are naturally occurring as plants absorb these materials as they propagate and grow. However, there are many ways that heavy metals can enter food products. In some situations, these unsafe metals can enter through manufacturing equipment that the companies use. Further, some of the binding ingredients in processed baby foods contain higher levels of heavy metals.

Many companies argue that these naturally occurring heavy metals are not easily removable. However, other companies have drastically changed their production methods to reduce significant amounts of heavy metals from their products. Despite these contentions, safety experts have provided several recommendations on how to diminish the presence of these unsafe materials in baby foods. They suggest researching new sources of food that contains less naturally occurring heavy metals and discontinue using products that do not have a low-risk alternative. Further, they advocated for an overhaul of outdated and potentially unsafe manufacturing equipment. Finally, they encouraged companies to consider researching chemical methods to reduce the level of mercury in baby food products.

At the end of 2020, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reported a Home Depot ceiling fan recall. After receiving dozens of reports, Home Depot issued the voluntary recall that the fan’s blades were detaching and posing serious dangers to people and property. Despite the voluntary recall, individuals who suffered injuries from a faulty ceiling fan may recover damages under Florida product liability laws. Responsible parties may include the product’s manufacturer, importer, wholesaler or retailer. Essentially any party in the stream of commerce may be a potential party.

The Home Depot described the nearly 200,000 ceiling fans as having remote controls, and LED lights. The home improvement store sold the fans in white, black and polished nickel. The fans are manufactured by a Florida company producing the items in China and importing them out of Georgia. There were approximately 182,000 units sold in the United States and another 9,000 in Canada. Manufacturers and federal authorities advised consumers who purchased the fans to stop using them and inspect the blades to ensure that they are not uneven. If any erratic movements or gaps are present, the consumers should contact the distributor.

Florida statute 768.81 governs product liability claims in the state and explains injury victims’ rights and remedies. The majority of claims stem from negligence or strict liability; however, some may arise from a breach of warranty. More than one theory may apply; however, an attorney can help plaintiffs determine the most promising strategic approach.

Under Florida law, defective product lawsuits are typically classified under design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn defects. Courts generally analyze these cases under a strict product liability theory or negligence theory. Unlike negligence cases, strict product liability does not consider a party’s intent; instead, plaintiffs must only establish that the product was defective. In some instances, the theories may overlap; however, the overwhelming majority of claims fall under strict product liability.

Florida product liability lawsuits typically fall under three categories, depending on the problem with the product and the manufacturer’s conduct. Claims may stem from design defects, manufacturing defects, or marketing defects. Design defect claims arise when a claimant argues that a product is inherently dangerous because of its design. Generally, claimants must establish that the product does not meet the “consumer expectation test,” which indicates that a product is unreasonably dangerous if it does not perform as a reasonable person would expect it to. Marketing defects occur when a manufacturer or anyone in the production chain fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions. In these cases, claimants may argue that the lack of warnings made the product unreasonably dangerous. Finally, manufacturing defects arise when a product’s design is inherently safe, but an error occurred during production that made the specific product unsafe.

All of these claims base liability on whether a product is “unreasonably dangerous”. Although the term is somewhat vague, courts tend to define an unreasonably dangerous product as more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would contemplate the product to be. For example, recently an appellate court issued an opinion addressing whether a product was unreasonably dangerous. In that case, the plaintiff was working on a trailer manufactured by the defendant. While loading the dump trailer, he stepped, and his hands slid off the top of the trailer, causing him to fall and suffer injuries. He argued that the manufacturer was strictly liable and negligent in designing and manufacturing an unreasonably dangerous product that lacked safety features. He presented expert testimony that the width of steps and spacing did not comply with safety standards. Ultimately, the appellate court found that the lower court erred in ruling in favor of the defendant, because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the product was unreasonably dangerous.

Even though airbags are meant to protect us, the reality is that sometimes they do more harm than good. If you have been injured due to any type of airbag malfunction, our Miami products liability lawyers can help. We understand the serious physical, emotional and financial toll that an airbag malfunction can have on a person and his or her entire family, which is why we will aggressively fight for your rights throughout the entire legal process.

We tend to believe the more airbags, the better. This is not always the case. A new study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) indicates that knee airbags are not very effective in preventing injury. In fact, they could potentially increase the risk of injury, according to the study. Knee airbags are airbags that deploy from a car’s lower dashboard. They are designed to spread impact across a car occupant’s legs in the event of a crash in an effort to reduce leg injuries.

IIHS examined data from more than 400 frontal crashes it conducted as part of its automobile ratings to determine if leg injuries were less probable in cars with knee airbags. Surprisingly, crash test results revealed that knee airbags were connected with an increased risk for lower leg and right femur injuries. The test was created to simulate what occurs when the front left corner of the car crashed into another automobile or object. Scrutinizing real world accident reports from 14 states, IIHS determined that knee airbags did decrease overall risk of injury from 7.9 to 7.4 percent, which the organization says is not statistically significant.

Continue reading →

When you open a bottle of wine or any other beverage, the last thing you expect to find inside is glass. Unfortunately, pebbles, glass, and other random objects in food and beverage products are more common than you may think. If you or someone close to you was injured by a foreign object in your food, you may be able to recover compensation for your harm. At our Law Offices, our Miami product liability attorneys can examine the facts of your case and help you understand your legal rights and options.

Last month, certain bottles of Florida wine were recalled for containing glass bits.

Seavin, Inc. announced a voluntary partial recall of select 750 milliliter glass bottles of its Lakeridge and San Sebastian wines because small grains or bits of glass were found in the bottles. The recall comes after testing related to the wine company’s production methods. The testing focused on a manufacturing defect affecting glass bottles used by Seavin in certain production runs. It is important to note that the affected bottles come from only one glass packaging manufacturer that supplies Seavin with its wine bottles. It is claimed that the risk to the public is extremely small because the number of bottles potentially containing pieces of glass is numerically insignificant.

Continue reading →