What is a marketplace, what is a vendor? 

Let’s say you’re in the mall and you buy some electronic equipment. The electronic equipment starts on fire, causes injury to you and your family, and burns your house down. Would you sue the mall or the company that produced the item? The answer could be both. The analogy of a mall with Amazon was strong enough to be the basis for Amazon’s defense against these suits in court. However, plaintiff’s attorneys were able to show that certain products which caused repeated injuries to customers had ample reviews concerning the fire hazard that these items posed. So, with ample information concerning particular defective products, Amazon could have removed the item from its marketplace.

Amazon, of course, claimed that it doesn’t exert that type of influence which is exactly why they should not be held liable for the products of their vendors. However, the court disagreed with this stance. Amazon can now be held liable for dangerous or defective products that they place into the stream of commerce.

With new liability comes new responsibility

Amazon wanted to exist in a liability black hole where only the vendors could be sued for damages related to their products. However, the court found that Amazon exerted enough control over the marketplace that they could be held liable and had the power to pull products that were dangerous or defective. Amazon would have preferred to do nothing about these dangerous products. But the courts want Amazon to be responsible for ensuring that the products offered on their forum are safe for their customers.

So eventually, a new standard will need to be put in place to determine when Amazon is responsible for injuries caused by defective products. Typically, negligence requires that an actor (any actor) either knew or should have known about the danger posed. In this case, Amazon had enough negative reviews to determine for themselves that this product was unsafe. Amazon wanted to continue allowing this product to be sold on their platform without consequence, injuring others, including children, who were interested in the product. Amazon will now be responsible for acting on negative reviews that present a safety threat to customers.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney Today

The Miami personal injury attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. represent the interests of injured plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits against negligent defendants. Call today to schedule a free consultation and we can discuss your case in more detail.

Resource:

courthousenews.com/appellate-court-finds-amazon-can-be-held-liable-for-defective-products/

https://www.goldfarbpa.com/broken-asphalt-results-in-trip-and-fall-lawsuit/

These allegations are similar to six other lawsuits that were filed against Conagra in May of 2019. All told, there are currently 33 lawsuits against Conagra Brands alleging that severe burns resulted from exploding cans of Pam.

The Case Against Pam

Conagra Brands and DS Containers are being targeted in these lawsuits over U-shaped vents that are designed to relieve pressure inside the can when it becomes overheated. Pam is designed for use in kitchens where heat is a foreseeable issue. According to the lawsuits, the vents opened leaking propellants such as propane and butane that caused fires.

Conagra Brands removed the can from its production line but said the reason for that had to do with standardizing the cans across all production lines and not because the cans were defective. They maintain that when Pam is used correctly, it is a safe and effective product. However, now that 33 plaintiffs are alleging otherwise, it becomes that much more difficult for Conagra to maintain this posture. While one person could make a mistake that causes a fire, 33 people making the same mistake means that the mistake is easy to make. If the mistake is easy to make, then Pam is responsible for warning potential customers about the danger.

In this case, attorneys for the plaintiffs are alleging that the design defect in the can made it dangerous to customers. They likewise claim that Pam failed to warn their customers about situations that could result in the can leaking or exploding. Even if the design of the can was intentional and safe when used correctly, there was obviously a situation where the can could cause problems for its customers. These customers deserved to be warned about those dangers.

Permanent Scarring and Disfigurement

It is typical for the manufacturer of a product to say in a press release that their product is safe when used correctly. This posture makes it sound like they are not liable for the injuries that occurred and establish that it’s the plaintiff’s burden to prove otherwise.

However, the plaintiffs in these cases suffered burns that were so severe that they resulted in permanent scarring and disfigurement, according to the lawsuit. When disfigurement is involved, the stakes of the lawsuit go up. Disfigurement is considered a permanent injury and these are compensated much more handsome than injuries that are expected to heal. Conagra could be on the hook for millions of dollars in damages to the 33 plaintiffs who suffered severe burn injuries and disfigurement caused by their product.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

If you’ve suffered severe burn injuries, the Miami personal injury attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. can help you recover damages related to your injuries. Talk to us today to set up a free consultation.

Resource:

chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-conagra-pam-can-lawsuits-20190925-6wsugyytffh6ra77bvyzksfv4e-story.html

https://www.goldfarbpa.com/defective-macbook-causes-burns/

In response, Lifetime Brands, who manufactured the defective Vasconia pressure cooker cut the plaintiffs a check for $26 million—which is one of the higher settlements you’ll see. However, the young woman now faces a life of prosthetics and will have difficulty performing basic tasks and even feeding herself. She was two years old at the time of the injury.

Strict Liability in Defective Product Lawsuits

Certain types of tort or personal injury claims do not require plaintiffs to prove negligence. Product liability lawsuits are one such tort case that does not require plaintiffs to prove negligence. The plaintiffs need only show that they were using the product in the expected way at the time of the malfunction and the malfunction resulted in injuries to plaintiffs.

In some cases, a company produces a product that they either know or later find out is defective and they keep it on the market without issuing a recall. In these cases, it is typical for the company to settle the lawsuit under seal quietly and then repeat that process until there is a formal inquiry. In this way, they do not have to publicly admit culpability and they’re willing to settle for huge amounts of money in order to purchase that right. Nonetheless, the product remains on the market.

In the case of the aforementioned pressure cooker, the locking mechanism that was distributed with the cooking device was the wrong size for the cooker itself. At some point, the company realized their cooker needed to be fitted with another locking mechanism, but they never issued a recall for the device.

In cases like this, it is typical for the plaintiff’s attorney to attempt to prove negligence. In this case, arguing that the company was negligent for allowing the device to remain on the market when they knew it was potentially hazardous. In this case, their failure to do so forever changed the life of a defenseless two-year-old girl who now has to live without a leg and a number of fingers. This opens the company up to punitive damages.

Punitive damages are awarded when the defendant’s conduct is egregious. The company likely felt that with a sympathetic victim, a jury might nail them to the wall for this preventable tragedy. They are likely correct in that regard.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs actually had to track down an older model which they purchased on eBay. They compared it with the newer model which had a slightly different locking mechanism and noted that the company had made the change.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury and Product Liability Attorney

The Miami legal team at the Alan Goldfarb P.A. helps injured victims recover damages from those responsible. Give us a call or contact us online and we can begin discussing your case today.

Resource:

https://flarecord.com/stories/511649266-pressure-cooker-manufacturer-settles-for-26m-over-girl-s-injuries

The G159 was a tire that was originally produced for commercial delivery trucks. It was meant to be driven in stop and go traffic but was also marketed for motorhomes and RVs. Unfortunately, the G159 allegedly has a major flaw: When the tire overheats, it causes the treads to separate from the body of the tire. When the tread separates from the tire, the tire blows out. In multiple instances that has resulted in fatalities to both those operating the RVs and others who had the misfortune of being in the vicinity when the tire blew.

Now facing several dozen lawsuits and inquiries from the NHTSA, many have called the G159 the worst tire ever made.

Why Was a Recall Never Issued?

That’s the real question that so many are searching for an answer to. Recalls can either be voluntary or mandatory. In the case where a government agency instructs a company to issue a recall, an investigation into the product must be conducted. In some cases, it may be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits rather than issue the recall. It also causes the company to lose credibility in the eyes of the consumer.

To this date, Goodyear insists the G159 is safe and the reason why the tires failed was due to mishandling by their owners. Underinflation is often blamed for tread separations, but tire underinflation can happen for any number of reasons. That includes cold weather.

Since the lawsuits that were settled by Goodyear were done so under seal of confidentiality, the public remained very much in the dark about the quality of the tire that was on their motorhome and the potential danger to those inside it.

The problem with the G159 was that it was not well suited to operate over long distances and lengthy periods of time. Had it remained on delivery vehicles, there would likely have never been one lawsuit filed. According to one attorney and an appeals panel, Goodyear’s own tests revealed that the tire was prone to overheating over long distances and continuous motion. When the tire overheated, it would cause the tread to separate causing the tire to blow out causing the driver to lose control over the vehicle. In other words, Goodyear blackholed information that would have shown the tire to be defective for the purpose of outfitting motorhomes.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

The legal team at the office of Alan Goldfarb has helped injured Floridians recover millions of dollars in damages when a defective product caused their injury. Give us a call or talk to us online to set up a free consultation.

Resource:

fairwarning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Pages-1-and-12.pdf

Much ink has been spilled over e-scooters and the terror that they have caused in major California cities with a huge divide as to whether or not they should be allowed on busy sidewalks. It’s one thing to ride your scooter around the street, but when scooter share companies are making them readily available in areas where there is a lot of foot traffic, it puts pedestrians at risk. Or so the allegation goes.

This has resulted in public outcry and backlash with city residents taking out their frustrations on the motorized devices. And by frustrations, we mean setting them on fire, tossing them into the Pacific, and smearing them with feces.

Now, some California attorneys are trying a less feculent approach: Suing the companies that flood California’s cities with e-scooters.

The Allegations

The lawsuit targets companies that place the e-scooters on the streets of major California cities most notably, Lime and Bird. The companies are charged with “gross negligence” and “aiding and abetting assault” in a lawsuit that has eight plaintiffs and counting. Further, the complaint alleges that the companies should have known that their e-scooters would become dangerous and that they would create what many have called “a public nuisance.”

Each plaintiff tells a similar tale: They were minding their own business, walking down the street, when they were suddenly and unexpectedly struck from behind by a careless scooter rider. The problem for these scooter companies is that their business model is based on similar bike-share or car-share companies that allow paying subscribers to use their vehicles. E-scooters, however, occupy that liminal space between non-motorized vehicles (like bikes) and motorized vehicles (like cars). There are set rules for both of these and motor scooters don’t fit snugly into either.

For one thing, they’re faster than most people walk and for another, those who use the motorized scooters can leave them wherever they want. It stands to reason then, that those with absolutely no consideration for others are creating a serious problem for folks on the streets of cities like San Francisco.

For residents, the scooters seemingly appeared overnight. The companies that dispersed the scooters in major commercial traffic districts did not ask city officials for permission or, indeed, anyone else. As injuries occurred with these scooters that travel much to fast for foot traffic, city officials began cracking down on the companies, seizing scooters, and passing laws limiting their number.

From the civil side, this lawsuit claims that the companies showed a wanton disregard for the safety of others. In a climate where there are many people who hate the scooters enough to literally crap on them, it’s not purely speculatory to claim that these companies might be on the hook for punitive damages.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

If you’ve been injured by another’s negligence, the Miami legal team at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. can help. Contact us online or by telephone and we can begin discussing your case today.

Resources:

latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bird-scooter-vandalism-20180809-story.html

washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/20/class-action-lawsuit-accuses-e-scooter-companies-gross-negligence/?utm_term=.6d5c46f6a1e0

The device, manufactured by Bayer, is an IUD that uses a synthetic progestin. Among the side effects are intracranial hypertension, pseudotumor cerebri—an ailment that mimics the symptoms of a brain tumor but is actually caused by increased blood pressure.

FDA Warnings

The FDA sent warnings to Bayer concerning misleading claims in their television and internet advertising. Additionally, the FDA has instructed Bayer to inform doctors concerning the risks to those who suffer from migraines or high blood pressure. Other warnings include:

• Mirena is shown to cause masculinization of female genitalia in fetuses during pregnancy.
• Mirena can sometimes become embedded in the patient’s uterine wall.
• Mirena can sometimes be expelled by the patient.
• Patients who develop ovarian cysts while taking Mirena may experience pelvic pain, especially during sex.
• Patients can develop sepsis from Mirena.

Allegations in Lawsuits

Lawsuits against Mirena have typically indicated that the IUD caused increased cranial pressure and vision problems caused by that pressure. In the most recent case, the patient indicated that shortly after having the device installed, she began experiencing painful headaches and blurred vision. The patient visited an optometrist and had an MRI done. After having a diagnostic done to evaluate the cause of the increased intracranial pressure, she was diagnosed with PTC (pseudotumor cerebri).

Bayer will claim, however, that they warn doctors to remove the device if the patient begins experiencing migraines or migraines with vision problems. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that Bayer did not warn doctors about the potential for PTC or intracranial hypertension and this increased the duration of her pain and suffering.

Indeed, the patient booklet makes no mention of intracranial hypertension, but then again, the FDA has not pushed Bayer to include this in their patient information. Nonetheless, there are hundreds of lawsuits across the country that allege Mirena causes just that.

This can be a major problem for Bayer since the condition may not be reversible if left untreated for too long. PTC can leave a patient permanently blinded among other irreversible side effects. The plaintiff, in this case, has to undergo periodic lumbar punctures and take medication for the maintenance of her condition.

If you have recently had a Mirena IUD installed and are experiencing symptoms of migraines or vision problems such as blurred vision, vision spots, blind spots, or any other vision problems, you should contact a doctor immediately because the damage becomes permanent.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

The Miami legal team at the office of Alan Goldfarb P.A. helps those harmed by defective products recover damages from the companies that produced them. If you have been injured, give us a call or talk to us online and we can begin preparing your case immediately.

Resource:

newyork.legalexaminer.com/health/medical-devices-implants/mirena-linked-with-intracranial-pressure-in-ny-lawsuit/

In 2006, the FDA approved a vaccine, Zostavax, for those 60 years of age or older. The vast majority of those who get shingles are older than 60. Later that year, the FDA approved the drug for those 50 and older.

What is Zostavax?

Zostavax is a vaccine for shingles that contains a small amount of the live herpes zoster virus. The idea is to train the immune system to attack the virus and thus prevent a flare-up of shingles in older adults. Unfortunately, this requires a healthy immune system in order to work properly. If a small amount of the live virus is entered into a system that isn’t functioning properly, it could, indeed, cause a case of shingles.

Who is at Fault?

The plaintiff, in this case, has chosen to target Merck & Co. for producing the Zostavax vaccine. Product liability lawsuits come in one of three kinds. Those are:

• Design defect lawsuits in which the plaintiff claims that the product is dangerous by design;
• Manufacturing defect lawsuits in which the plaintiff claims that something went wrong during manufacturing and caused their injuries;
• And failure to warn lawsuits in which the plaintiff claims that a manufacturer neglected to warn a consumer about a dangerous feature.

In this case, the plaintiff is alleging that Merck & Co. failed to warn doctors and patients that this vaccine could potentially cause the very illness that it was attempting to prevent. Perhaps had his doctor known that there was live virus in the vaccine or there was a warning about giving this virus to those who had compromised immune systems the patient’s injuries could have been avoided.

As a result, the patient suffered an onset of shingles and permanent nerve damage caused by the shingles. He is suing Merck & Co. because there is nothing in the vaccine’s warnings about live virus or potential side effects beyond itching at the injection site.

The plaintiff has also tacked on allegations of design defect, negligent misrepresentation, and is seeking punitive damages for his injuries.

Punitive Damages in Product Liability Suits

Product liability suits are unique insofar as plaintiffs do not have to prove negligence. When a plaintiff’s attorney does attempt to prove negligence, it is usually because they are pursuing punitive damages which are awarded in the case that the defendant’s negligence was egregious enough to warrant a stiff punishment. If it can be shown that Merck & Co. intentionally blackholed information concerning side effects, the plaintiff may be able to recover punitive damages.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

If a defective drug or other product has caused your illness or injury, the Miami office of Alan Goldfarb P.A. can help you recover damages for your injuries. Give us a call or contact us online and we can begin discussing your case.

Making matters worse, the evidence showed that Takata Corp. knew that the airbags were defective and potentially lethal. Takata quickly settled dozens of lawsuits filed against them for the airbags handing out large settlements under seal and never admitting liability. The maneuver was meant to keep automakers in the dark concerning potential problems with the design. Nonetheless, every major automaker has been hit with a lawsuit.

Toyota, Subaru, and Mazda settled for a reported $553 million, while Nissan settled for $98 million and Honda settled for over $600 million. GMC, Chrysler, Volkswagen, and Mercedes are still fighting battles in court. Ford was the most recent company to suffer a significant economic loss paying $299 million to victims of the defective airbag.

Takata itself agreed to pay $650 million in consumer protection claims across the states, but the states will likely never see a dime of that money. Takata has basically been bankrupted by the millions of dollars it has had to pay out in catastrophic injury and wrongful death lawsuits and is currently having its debts reorganized in Chapter 11.

Economic Losses

Each of the auto companies that used Takata airbags in their vehicles has been hit with lawsuits. The latest lawsuits have been for economic damages related to the recall and reinstallation of safe airbags. Those who have had to have their airbag replaced because it’s a potential safety hazard have each been awarded $500 for the cost and use of a rental vehicle.

Personal Injury Trust

In the process of settling with Takata after word broke that they had covered up their product’s dangerous defects, the court set up a trust for victims when it became apparent that Takata was bankrupted. The problem for Takata was that they lied, covered up the defect, and allowed their products to be distributed without warning. Because of this, plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded when the defendant’s negligence is so egregious that they deserve to be punished on top of paying for the plaintiff’s injuries. Since Takata allowed a potentially lethal product on the market, they were crucified in court.

On top of that, the Department of Justice filed a criminal case against Takata setting aside $125 million for victims of the defective airbag. As a part of their bankruptcy settlement, Takata was forced to set aside another $140 million in a trust for personal injury and wrongful death victims.

The funds are designed to compensate those who have been or may yet still be injured by the airbags.

Have You Been Injured by a Dangerous Product?

Miami personal injury attorney Alan Goldfarb can help you recover damages when you’ve been injured by a defective product. Give us a call at (305) 371-3111 or contact us online, and we can begin preparing your case immediately.

Resource:

latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-takata-settlement-20180222-story.html

Due to his traumatic brain injury, the veteran’s reflex was not to flinch from the burning sensation but to clench it in his fist. His father had to pry the burning hot roll from his hand. A blister began to form immediately and his parents took him to a nearby hospital.

Now the veteran is suing Lambert’s Cafe for injuries related to the burns he suffered as a result of the extremely hot roll. The claim that the server never warned them that the rolls were hot, but that the rolls were, in fact, hot enough to cause blisters to the man’s hands.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants

The aforementioned lawsuit is vaguely reminiscent of a case involving an old woman who spilled hot coffee on herself at McDonald’s. She then sued the company for her burns in what would become one of the most infamous product liability lawsuits of all time. While many summarily dismiss Stella Liebeck’s claim as frivolous, most of these folks don’t know the details behind the lawsuit nor the extent of her injuries.

While the Albuquerque grandmother acknowledged that the spill was primarily her fault, the lawsuit never centered on who caused the spill. It had more to do with the extent of the woman’s injuries. Mrs. Liebeck had third-degree burns to her pelvic region due in large part to the fact that McDonald’s served their coffee at 190℉. That’s 22° below boiling. According to one consumer research survey, the optimum temperature for coffee is 145℉ +/- 15°. In other words, between 130℉ and 160℉.

To top it off, Liebeck required extensive surgery including skin grafts to repair the damage from the coffee. In her original lawsuit, she only hoped that McDonald’s would pay for her medical expenses which cost her $20,000. McDonald’s in response offered $800. In addition, McDonald’s had gotten numerous reports that their coffee was causing extensive scalding injuries but claimed that their customers wanted the coffee that hot.

After hearing the evidence, the jury was so upset with how McDonald’s handled Mrs. Liebeck’s claim that they awarded her $2.86 million. Many were stunned at pundits used this as an example of why there needed to be “tort reform” to limit jury awards in personal injury cases. Eventually, the case was settled for $640,000.

In fact, McDonald’s got off easy and as a result, changed the way that they prepared their coffee.

Have You Been Injured by a Defective Product?

The office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A in Miami can help manage your claim and see that you are compensated for your injuries. Give us a call at (305) 371-3111 or contact us online for a free consultation.

Resources:

news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2018/06/26/missouri-restaurant-sued-disable-vet-over-hot-roll/733947002/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454

vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

Her husband died in 1997 from cancer. Throughout the course of his life, he tried very hard to quit. He switched to light cigarettes believing them to be safer than full-flavored. Eventually, he succeeded in quitting entirely. But three months later, he was diagnosed with late-stage cancer.

Engle Progeny Cases

Engle progeny cases refer to a class action lawsuit brought about by a pediatrician by the name of Howard Engle in 1994. But in 2006, the class was decertified. This forced thousands of Florida residents to file lawsuits against major tobacco companies which has created a queue in the judiciary that many speculate will take decades to settle.

Most of these cases have been won by plaintiffs, but legal counsel for tobacco companies appeals the verdict each time exacerbating the bottleneck. Big Tobacco has been accused of gaming the system, but if the lawsuits were allowed to go through all at the same time, it could force the companies into bankruptcy. In that case, they may not have to pay any of the plaintiffs in those cases.

Further, the State of Florida sued Big Tobacco for costs related to healthcare in the state. They won. Each year Big Tobacco sends the state of Florida a sizeable sum of money. If the tobacco companies were to declare bankruptcy, that money would be gone.

It Wasn’t Just about Selling a Dangerous Product

Companies are allowed to sell and produce potentially dangerous products. The catch is that they have to warn potential customers that their products are dangerous. If they fail to do that, they can be held liable under strict liability tort.

Strict liability tort means that the plaintiff does not have to prove negligence, only that the defendant’s product injured them in some way.

Engle progeny cases, however, involve other elements such as fraud and fraudulent concealment. This, in fact, opens up the companies to be accused of punitive damages for knowingly misleading their customers and a careless disregard for their health.

Engle progeny cases involved three phases. The first phase found that Big Tobacco’s conduct in manipulating, misrepresenting, and defrauding their customers should see them held liable for punitive damages. The second established compensatory damages and set a punitive damages award limit for the entire class. That number was $145 billion.

However, the third phase caused the most problems. It was meant to establish a specific causal relationship between tobacco products and damages. But differences in individual circumstances would essentially produce different outcomes for different class members. Big Tobacco appealed on these grounds and the Supreme Court agreed, decertifying the entire class.

Nonetheless, jury findings in the first two phases remain intact. That leaves Engle progeny plaintiffs needing only to establish causation and manipulation. In this case, the belief that light cigarettes are “safer” than other cigarettes, likely forestalled the plaintiff’s decision to quit. By the time he quit, it was just too late.

Big tobacco will likely appeal the decision.

Reach Out to Us Today for Help

If you’ve been injured by a defective or dangerous product, the Miami attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. can help you litigate your case. Give us a call at (305) 371-3111 or contact us online, and we can begin preparing your case immediately.

Resources:

law.com/dailybusinessreview/2018/06/04/south-florida-attorneys-secure-21-million-verdict-for-widow-of-cancer-patient/

floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2006/sc03-1856.pdf