product liability

Do Product Recalls Protect People?

February 17, 2023 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a word, no. Product recalls prevent bad problems from becoming worse, since they take dangerous products out of circulation. But product recalls do nothing to compensate injured victims. A Marietta personal injury attorney must file a legal action in court to obtain compensation for defective product victims.

Incidentally, agencies like the Food and Drug Administration only press for product recalls as a last resort. Industry-paid user fees provide almost half of this agency’s budget. The more items these companies sell, the more user fees they pay. In other words, FDA bureaucrats have a financial incentive to limit recalls. These recalls are only recall requests. The FDA does not have the power to unilaterally recall a defective product, no matter how dangerous it is.

Legal Matters

Foam Issues Prompt Recall of Philips Ventilators

January 21, 2022 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The same problem that plagued defective Philips CPAP sleep apnea treatment machines has affected another line of products.

This recall affects Philips Trilogy 100 and 200-series ventilators. The company previously recalled these ventilators in 2021, but the company assured the Food and Drug Administration that it had fixed the problem. Trilogy 100 and 200 ventilators, which are widely used in a number of settings, contain polyurethane foam linings to deaden the gadget’s sound. These vibrations break up the foam, so patients could inhale microscopic particles, which are highly toxic.

Unsafe continuous positive airway pressure machines, which pump air into sleeping people to keep their airways open, have already prompted tens of thousands of lawsuits throughout the country.

What are Some Potential Defenses in Product Liability Cases?

November 30, 2021 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you were recently injured by a product and you plan to file a lawsuit against a liable party (such as the manufacturer or retailer of the product), you should be aware of some potential defenses that the party might bring up in court.

Potential Defenses

Defendants in products liability cases can typically raise various defenses that plaintiffs should be cognizant of before deciding whether or not to proceed to trial. Some of these defenses include the following:

Understanding Products Liability Claims in Georgia

July 23, 2021 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you were ever injured by using a product, you may have a valid products liability claim. It is important to understand what a successful products liability claim requires. The following will provide some helpful information regarding products liability claims in the state of Georgia.

What is a Products Liability Claim?

Generally speaking, a products liability claim is based on the theory that a party should be held accountable for manufacturing, designing, producing, selling, or reselling a defective product that causes injury to a person.

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Couple May Pursue Lawsuit Against Sperm Bank on Consumer Fraud–But Not “Wrongful Birth” of Their Child

October 16, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In 2001, a couple purchased donor sperm from a sperm bank so that they could conceive a child. The sperm bank represented that it carefully screened all of its donors, to the point where it only accepted about 5% of potential donors. More to the point, the sperm bank told the couple here that the sample they purchased–identified as Donor #9623–was one of their “best” donors.

That turned out to be not quite true. In fact, Donor #9623 made a number of false and misleading statements during the screening process. For example, although he said he had no criminal history, he had multiple prior arrests for burglary, trespassing, and drunk driving. The donor also lied about his educational background.

Such omissions may not seem like a big deal, but the donor also failed to disclose that he had a history of mental illness, for which he required multiple hospitalizations. The couple who purchased the donor’s sperm only learned of this years later, after the child they conceived was born and had started to manifest symptoms of mental disorders himself. The child also has a genetic blood disorder that was not acquired from the mother.

Crane Manufacturer Faces Trial in Savannah Over Fatal Accident

July 10, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Industrial accidents are often the result of a chain of events. There are usually multiple parties whose negligence or intentional failures led to an innocent worker’s injury. Of course, when the victim files a lawsuit, these parties are quick to try and deflect blame to one another.

Hill v. Konecranes, Inc.

An ongoing federal lawsuit in Savannah, Hill v. Konecranes, Inc., provides an apt illustration of this principle. This tragic case involves the 2015 death of a crane operator. The victim worked for International Paper Company (IP) in Augusta, where he used a gantry crane to move timber. Konecranes, Inc., was the company responsible for manufacturing and installing the crane. IP also retained Konecranes to perform regular inspections of the gantry crane.

Federal Court Declines to Return Ex-Foundry Employees’ Class Action to State Court

April 30, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Class actions allow multiple individuals who suffered a common personal injury to file a single lawsuit against a defendant or group of defendants. Typically, the plaintiffs who file the class action decide whether or not to bring their case in state or federal court. But in some cases, the defendants may force the “removal” of a class action from state to federal court.

A 2005 law, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), permits defendants to do this. CAFA provides for removal when there are more than 100 plaintiffs in the class, the amount they seek is more than $5 million, and at least one plaintiff is a resident of a different state than at least one of the defendants. However, removal is not allowed when the class action arises from “an event or occurrence in the State in which the action was filed, and that allegedly resulted in injuries in that State or in States contiguous to that State.”

Spencer v. Specialty Foundry Products Inc.

Court of Appeals Revives Asbestos Lawsuit Against Gasket Manufacturer

November 15, 2019 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The dangers of asbestos have now been known for decades. Any exposure to asbestos fibers can lead to the development of mesothelioma, a deadly form of lung cancer, and other illnesses. In many cases, asbestos-related illnesses do not manifest symptoms until decades after the exposure.

Davis v. John Crane, Inc.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in what is just the latest in a series of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. In Davis v. John Crane, Inc., the Court addressed a pair of related claims arising from the death of John F. Davis, a former worker at a fiberboard mill owned by Louisiana Pacific Corporation. As part of his job, David routinely “swept up dust and debris around the mill and assisted in the removal of gaskets on the mill’s boilers,” according to court records. This exposed Davis to a number of asbestos-containing parts.

Federal Court Upholds $2.4 Million Award in ObTape Lawsuit

October 18, 2019 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In recent years there have been hundreds of personal injury lawsuits filed against Mentor, the manufacturer of ObTape, a mesh sling used to treat urinary incontinence. According to a 2009 report in the New York Times, Mentor stopped selling ObTape in 2006 after reports emerged that pieces of the mesh sling were breaking off inside of patients. This rendered the devices ineffective in stopping incontinence and led to a variety of additional side effects, such as chronic bladder inflammation.

Taylor v. Mentor Worldwide LLC

Eventually, more than 800 lawsuits against Mentor, which is now owned by Johnson & Johnson, were consolidated as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding here in Georgia. One of the first cases from this MDL to go to trial involved a woman named Teresa Taylor. She specifically accused Mentor of design defects in ObTape.

Valdosta Judge Allows Defective Pressure Cooker Lawsuit to Proceed

September 6, 2019 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Pressure cookers were first developed in the 17th century. They create an airtight environment where steam pressure raises the boiling point of water, allowing food to cook much faster than normal. Of course, the buildup of pressure can lead to an explosion if the cooker itself is somehow defective.

Williams v. Tristar Products, Inc.

In an ongoing federal lawsuit, Williams v. Tristar Products, Inc., a Georgia woman alleges that a defective pressure cooker exploded in her home, causing her severe second-degree burns. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was using a PC-WAL1/TRI-6 pressure cooker, which had been a Christmas gift from her mother. The plaintiff said she had used the pressure cooker on three previous occasions without incident, and that she always followed the manufacturer’s directions.