Articles Posted in Product Liability

by

DMAA is an ingredient of pre-workout energy boosters. A recent Chicago Tribune article describes DMAA supplements (a/k/a 1, 3-dimethylamylamine or methylhexaneamine) as being marketed as a natural substance that comes from geraniums. But substantial evidence negates that assertion.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now calling on the manufacturers of DMAA to verify the safety of their products. The regulators are saying that DMAA is a pharmaceutical compound marketed as a natural ingredient. This has led to renewed calls for federal regulations for dietary supplements.

Users of the products containing DMAA claim that it brings renewed energy, especially to competitive bodybuilders and athletes.

Continue reading

by

Manufacturers have an obligation to make their products safe for regular use. However, how far does this obligation extend? Are manufacturers required to make it overly difficult for consumers to modify their products? A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision examines to what extent manufacturers are liable for after-market modifications made to their products; Geronimo Perez v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., et al., Nos. 2-11-0382, 2-11-0486 cons (April 9, 2012).

In January 2008, Geronimo Perez was injured while using a scissor lift machine manufactured by JLG Industries. In his product liability lawsuit, Perez claimed that his injury could have been prevented if there had been a guardrail on the scissor lift machine. What is interesting about Perez is that JLG Industries had installed a guardrail when it designed its scissor lift; however, someone had removed the guardrail after the scissor lift machine left JLG’s factory.

So while JLG Industries had designed its scissor lift machine so that falls like Perez’s would be prevented, someone unconnected to the company had removed that safety feature. Yet Perez alleged that JLG was liable because it should have foreseen that someone would remove that guardrail, thereby causing his subsequent fall. JLG countered that it was not responsible for modifications others made to its product and that its scissor lift machine’s design was not defective.

Continue reading

by

While not every civil lawsuit requires a party to hire an expert, there are some instances where an expert’s opinion and testimony are vital to the case’s outcome. For example, if a plaintiff is making medical malpractice claims against a doctor or hospital, he or she will likely hire a medical expert to help support those claims. Likewise, in a product liability lawsuit, a party would generally need to hire some sort of expert to help prove that there was in fact a design or manufacturing defect. The vital nature of these experts’ testimony means that if for some reason those experts’ opinions are barred, the plaintiff will have an extremely difficult time proving the defendant’s negligence.

This is exactly what happened in the product liability lawsuit of Raymond Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., No. 10-1194 (November 18, 2011). Bielskis filed a lawsuit against Louisville Ladder in which he claimed that its scaffolding design was defective and caused his work injury. In order to prove his claims, Bielskis’s attorneys had hired an engineering expert. After the trial court barred the engineering expert’s testimony, Bielskis filed an appeal in which he asked the court to reinstate his expert’s testimony.

Bielskis arose out of a fall Bielskis had while using a scaffold constructed by Louisville Ladder. Bielskis had originally purchased the scaffold in 1997 while working as an acoustical ceiling carpenter for R.G. Construction. During that time, Bielskis was responsible for providing the equipment and scaffolding for most of his jobs. However, in 2001, Bielskis began working for International Decorators, who generally supplied its workers with scaffolding equipment. As a result, Bielskis rarely used his Louisville Ladder scaffold after switching employers in 2001.

Then in 2005, Bielskis decided to use his Louisville Ladder scaffold on a job. Bielskis inspected the scaffold’s condition before using it; however, not noting any problems, Bielskis determined it was safe to use. But when he placed his weight onto one of the scaffold’s caster stems, the scaffold broke and collapsed. Bielskis fell and injured himself; that scaffolding injury is the subject of the current lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a spoliation claim in a product liability lawsuit arising out of a 2004 car accident. The trial court had ruled that the insurer for the defendant vehicle salvage company did not have to contribute to any settlement that might arise out the salvage company’s inappropriate destruction of the relevant vehicle. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling and found that the salvage company’s insurance policy did in fact cover any claims arising out of spoliation of evidence. As a result of the appellate court’s decision, the defendant’s insurance company will now have to pay any reasonable damages arising out of the spoliation claim. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., et al., No. 1-10-1723 (December 16, 2011).

The product liability lawsuit was based on a 2004 SUV rollover accident. Michael Widawski’s Nissan Pathfinder SUV rolled over, ejecting Monika Gramacki, its only passenger, from the vehicle as it rolled over. Gramacki died and her family brought a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for an alleged defect in the Pathfinder’s rear door.

The main piece of evidence in a product defect claim is the alleged damaged product, which in this case would Widawski’s Nissan Pathfinder. It is not enough for a party to simply allege that a product is defective; it must also be examined by experts to determine the source of the defect and whether that defect caused harm to the party. However, in the present case, no experts were able to examine Widawski’s vehicle because it was destroyed before they could do so.

Following the rollover accident, Widawski’s insurer, Farmers Insurance, handled the preservation of the Pathfinder. Farmers hired LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., a vehicle salvage and storage firm, to store the damaged Nissan and keep it in its current condition. However, LKQ failed to follow these instructions and somehow ended up destroying the Nissan Pathfinder shortly after it arrived. And with its destruction went Gramacki’s family’s hope of a fair and successful product defect claim against Nissan.

In order to rectify this dilemma, Gramacki’s father filed two lawsuits: the first was a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for the allegedly faulty door latch, the second was a spoliation of evidence claim against Farmers for the destroyed Pathfinder. In its claim against Farmers, Gramacki alleged that the “destruction of the subject Nissan Pathfinder deprived Plaintiff of the key piece of evidence necessary to prove an otherwise valid product liability/negligence lawsuit” against Nissan. Farmers then filed a third party lawsuit against LKQ for its role in destroying the Pathfinder.

Continue reading

by

Back in November Volkswagen began notifying its customers that it would be voluntarily recalling numerous of its diesel models for faulty fuel injectors. The car manufacturer estimates that this recall could affect more than 168,000 vehicles. While Volkswagen’s website has more information on the specific models the Volkswagen recall effects, they include:

• Volkswagen Golf models manufactured between 2010 and 2011,
• Volkswagen Jetta models manufactured between 2009 and 2012, and
• some Audi 3 models manufactured between 2010 and 2012.

Of the above models, only those vehicles containing the 2.0L TDI® Clean Diesel engine are included in the recall. According to Volkswagen, there is a possibility that certain vibrations will cause a fuel line crack in the engine, which could then cause a fuel leak. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) warns that fuel leaks could lead to car fires, Volkswagen stated that it is not aware of any accidents or injuries caused by fuel line cracks in its diesel engines.

Continue reading

by

A Chicago jury entered a $3 million jury verdict against a forklift manufacturer in an Illinois product liability lawsuit. The Chicago lawsuit arose out of a work injury involving 35 year-old Keith Price and a forklift designed and manufactured by Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. As a result of the Chicago work injury, Price was left with an amputated right leg and was unable to work for over five years. Keith Price v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc., Voss Equipment, Inc., 06 L 12915.

The work injury occurred in February 2005 at a Chicago plant of ICI Uniqema, where Price was employed as a forklift operator. On the date of the work injury, Price was using a forklift to load a bag of spent nickel into a nearby hopper. However, as Price attempted to the bag into the hopper, it became caught on another bag. Price then needed to use a chain to readjust the position of the spent nickel bag. These chains were still attached when Price lifted the forks above the bag, at which point the forklift tipped over onto its side.

While Price was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the forklift accident, the seat itself was not properly attached to the forklift. As a result, the seat Price was sitting on rolled forward as the forklift moved. Price’s legs did not remain inside the vehicle and were crushed underneath the forklift. The weight of the large machine caused severe crushing injuries to his right leg, necessitating a below the knee amputation. In addition, Price sustained facial fractures to his jaw and lost four of his teeth.

Continue reading

by

In law, if you don’t agree with a lower court’s ruling, you have the option of appealing your case to a higher court. However, just because you file an appeal does not mean you will be happy with the outcome. In the product liability lawsuit of David Show, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Nos. 10-2428 and 10-2637, the trial court had entered a summary judgment that effectively dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which in turn declined to review the product liability lawsuit.

The lawsuit sprung from an Illinois rollover accident in which the two plaintiffs, David Show and Maria Federici, were injured. At the time of the auto accident, the two plaintiffs were riding in a 1993 Ford Explorer, which rolled over after being struck by another vehicle. The plaintiffs both suffered personal injuries as a result of the rollover accident and subsequently brought an Illinois product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for its supposed negligence in designing its Ford Explorer.

The basis of the plaintiffs’ claim was that Ford had chosen to defectively design and produce their Explorer, making it an unsafe vehicle for consumers. In order to show that the SUV was unsafe, the plaintiffs offered up the fact that it had rolled over in their accident and was therefore unsafe. They testified that as consumers they would have expected the car to not rollover in an accident.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois Supreme Court ruling in a product liability lawsuit confirms that manufacturers are not required to guard against every risk to the consumer. The verdict in Dora Mae Jablonski v. Ford Motor Company, No. 110096, reversed a $43 million judgment in a 5-0 vote.

Jablonski was filed as a result of a rear-end car accident involving Dora Mae and John Jablonski. The couple was traveling in their 1993 Lincoln Town Car when they were struck by a Chevrolet Lumina that was traveling at 60 mph. The impact of the collision was such that it propelled a pipe wrench laying in the truck of the Jablonski’s vehicle through the trunk walls and into the nearby fuel tank. The punctured fuel tank caused the car to catch fire, leaving John Jablonski dead and Dora Mae severely burned.

Dora Mae and her son brought a product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, alleging that it had negligently designed a defective and dangerous fuel tank system in its Lincoln Town Car. According to the plaintiffs’ theory of liability, the design of the Town Car’s rear fuel tank system left it susceptible to puncture or being damaged during a rear-end collision.

Continue reading

by

A Central Illinois product liability lawsuit springing from a construction site injury returned the highest verdict in Tazewell County history. The Illinois jury awarded $13.5 million to the twenty-some year-old plaintiff who suffered a traumatic leg amputation; Justin Stone v. MiTek Industries and Central Illinois Truss, Inc., 10th Judicial Circuit, Tazewell County, Illinois (2011).

At the time of his work injury, 19 year-old Dustin Stone was working on a machine building roof trusses, or roof rafters, which are the triangle supports used to build roofs in homes. The roof truss machine consisted of several different work tables spread out over the length of the 100 ft. long machine. Stone was adding support to the wood trusses by hammering metal plates into the various truss joints.

Stone was standing between two opposite-facing machine tables when another truss operator drove a crane gantry toward the area where Stone was working. Protocol requires the gantry operator to first make sure the aisles are clear of workers; however, this was obviously not done on the date of Stone’s construction site injury. The gantry pinned Stone against a metal rail, crushing his left femur so severely that he required an above the knee amputation of his left leg.

Continue reading

by

Legal venue is an important issue in many personal injury lawsuits, especially when the different states have different laws. In the product liability lawsuit of Joseph Murphy v. Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., No. 1-10-2178 (March 31, 2011), the Illinois Appellate Court sought to answer the question of whether Michigan law or Illinois law governed the case regarding issues of liability and damages.

The car accident at issue in Murphy occurred in Michigan. However, the plaintiff driver and the defendant car dealership where the plaintiff bought his car both were located in Illinois. The court then had to decide where the personal injury lawsuit should be heard – in Michigan, where the accident occurred, or in Illinois, where the plaintiff driver lived and worked.

Where the lawsuit was filed, or “choice-of-law,” would be critical to the eventual outcome of Murphy because of the major differences in Michigan and Illinois law. When deciding product liability issues, Illinois law applies a strict liability rule, whereas Michigan law applies a pure negligence standard. This means that Illinois defendants cannot effectively argue that they were unaware of the risk of the design defect, whereas this could be a successful defense in Michigan where the standard of care is set by similar manufacturers. In addition, Michigan imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in any product liability lawsuits, whereas Illinois has no such cap on damages.

Continue reading