Articles Posted in Products Liability

A 63-year-old married mother of two, suffered an aggravation of her back and neurological condition after a medical device collapsed in her spine, leading to nerve damage in her arms and legs and severe muscle spasms. After her initial back surgery where the medical device was implanted, our client underwent a revision surgery, in addition to a series of injections and physical therapy.

Before the initial surgery, the client was hoping to recover in time to walk into her son’s graduation several months post-surgery. Her treating physicians recommended that she would require pain management, ongoing evaluations, future medical care, medications, and therapeutic services in the future due to the failed medical device.

The defendant vigorously disputed liability, medical causation, and damages with various liability and medical experts. The device had never been recalled, and the opposing expert witnesses denied that the device malfunctioned or collapsed at all. However, after mediation and on the eve of trial, the defendant settled the case for $2.4 million.

Our attorney, Derek Aswell, recently obtained $2.5 Million for his client in a products liability case. The client is still recovering from extreme injuries due to a machine malfunction on the job site but received favorable compensation thanks to Derek’s thoroughness on the case.

The plaintiff involved was a superintendent equipment operator who was subcontracted to crush rocks for a wind turbine farm in Texas. The cause of the accident occurred when rock material obstructed the machine which prevented it from operating properly. The plaintiff powered off the crushing chamber before attempting to clear the obstruction, but the rotor of the machine suddenly free- spun, sending the plaintiff through the crushing chamber. This incident caused horrific and life-threatening injuries.

Thanks to Derek and his team’s hard work and excellence on the case, he helped his client hire experts in design and biomechanics to prove the machine was dangerously designed and that the injuries were caused by the chamber. The case ultimately resulted in a $2.5 Million settlement for the plaintiff.

At first glance, “tort” may sound like a strange word, but it is an essential term to understand in the legal space.

In the legal realm, a “tort” refers to any wrong or injury imposed by one person or entity onto another. A tort is classified as a civil wrong (as opposed to criminal) that can be inflicted intentionally or unintentionally. Examples include assault or a car accident due to negligence.

Personal injury law is a subcategory of tort law where a person is injured due to another’s unintentional actions or negligence. Other subcategories of tort include automobile accidents, medical malpractice, and premises liability. Tort law defines the rights of individuals and the responsibility of each person to treat others with fairness in society. It ensures if you are injured due to someone’s negligence, you have a right to receive compensation.

Recently, we told you about how a lawsuit resulted in the recall of over one million bikes with a serious flaw that paralyzed our client. This made cyclists across the country safer. Now we look at how another client’s case revealed a critical workplace hazard.

A Louisiana resident was focused on his work near a large industrial forklift when suddenly the heavy steel fork dislodged striking his hard hat. He was instantly paralyzed for life.

The forklift manufacturer blamed the tragedy on the employer’s maintenance practices and said the design was safe. Through intensive investigation and discovery depositions we learned that there was an error in the specification of the fork. The dimensions of the fork specified in the manufacturer’s catalog allowed it to slip off  spontaneously.

A Delaware couple filed a complaint on July 18 against Daily Harvest Inc., alleging negligence and other claims. Daniel and Lindsey Davis alleged the defendant’s French “Lentil & Leek Crumbles” caused Daniel to suffer from acute liver toxicity, causing abdominal pain, fevers, and chills.

The plaintiffs further claim that Daily Harvest’s food was not fit for human consumption and constitutes a breach of implied warranty. Additionally, they allege Daily Harvest failed to comply with federal, state, and local laws and safety codes with the distribution and sale of its food products. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary relief, trial by jury, and all other just relief.

Just in the last week, four other major food companies recalled their products due to product deficiencies. One popular brand, King’s Hawaiian, recalled its “Pretzel Slider Buns” because an ingredient used in the products can potentially cause “microbial contamination including from the organism Cronobacter sakazakii and Clostridium botulinum.” KraftHeinz’s also recalled about 5,760 cases of their popular children’s product, Capri Sun, after discovering a specific variety of juice pouches contained cleaning solution.

An average of 16,500 car accidents occur daily across the United States. In the blink of an eye, a rear-end car accident can completely turn one’s life upside down by causing life-altering injuries. Such an event can leave one lost as to what to do next, scared as to the daunting recovery process that lies ahead, and confused as to where to even begin. Some insight into the expected process of legal settlements may aid you or a loved one in making important decisions following a tragic accident.

In Louisiana, a car accident resulting in an injury, death, or property damage resulting in over $500 requires the parties by law to contact the local police department. Following the accident, an injured party should seek legal assistance. This will significantly offset the post-accident burdens of both filing a claim with the negligent party’s insurance company and gathering  supporting evidence like medical examinations, photos, and witness testimony.

Further, an attorney can file suit against a negligent party, thereby holding that party liable for their actions. The lawsuit must be brought within 1 year of the date of the accident or else the claim is forever lost. Once the legal process begins, parties will work tirelessly to reach what is known as a settlement. A settlement resolves the dispute by dropping the claim before reaching trial in return for a monetary compensation. Settlement processes can last anywhere from a few months to a few years depending on the severity of the injuries and the accident. In the settlement process, the injured party seeks recompense for physical pain and suffering, repair or replacement of their car, medical expenses, mental anguish from the accident, lost wages, as well as other forms of damages.

While thousands of cancer patients are currently involved in lawsuits against the agrochemical corporation Monsanto Company, only three have gone to trial, all of which have resulted in verdicts favoring the plaintiff. Most recently, a California jury awarded the plaintiff the eighth-largest personal injury verdict in United States history—$2.055 billion—claiming, both, that the company’s popular weed killer Roundup has carcinogenic properties and that the company “manipulated science, the media, and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda.”

The couple receiving the award, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, both started using Roundup in the 1970’s. Now almost fifty years later, both individuals suffer from cancer; Mr. Pilliod suffers from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in his bones, including his spine, and Mrs. Pilliod suffers from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma brain cancer. As a result, the couple received $55 million in compensatory damages. This, however, pales in comparison to the $2 billion punitive award against Monsanto, who continues to claim that the herbicide at play, glyphosate, is non-carcinogenic. Working against the defense is a “mountain of evidence” showing that the agrochemical company explicitly tried to interfere with governmental agencies who wanted to review the product. Various investigations have illuminated a concerning relationship between Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency, which involved EPA officials that offered to help Monsanto prevent another company from reviewing the effects the herbicide.

It is certainly expected that the defense will appeal the case, and though there is little chance that the verdict will be reversed, it is additionally expected that the initial $2 billion award will be dramatically reduced, similar to a previous Roundup case wherein a jury award of $289 million was cut down to $78 million. Plaintiff’s attorneys admit that, though the actions of Monsanto Company were egregious and reprehensible, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines that “punitive damages usually should not exceed 10 times the compensatory damages.”

The family of a Walter Huang has filed a wrongful death suit against Tesla Motors Inc. following a crash that ended his life. On March 23, 2018, Mr. Huang was traveling southbound on Highway 101 when his vehicle, a Tesla Model X, misread the lane lines, failed to detect a concrete traffic barrier, failed to brake the car, and instead, accelerated the car until it struck the median at 71 miles per hour (according to an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board). Huang was killed on impact.

According to the suit, “Based on Tesla’s advertising and promotional material, Decedent Walter Huang believed the Tesla Model X’s technology was such that the autopilot features included designed-in programs, software, hardware, and systems that would eliminate the risk of harm or injury to the vehicle operator.” It continues to allege that Mr. Huang “reasonably believed the 2017 Tesla Model X vehicle was safer than a human-operated vehicle because of the Defendant’s claimed technical superiority regarding the vehicle’s autopilot system, including Tesla’s ‘traffic-aware cruise control’, ‘autosteer lane-keeping assistance’ and other safety components.” Huang’s family notes that, despite these advertisement claims by Tesla, Mr. Huang complained on numerous occasions about his vehicle’s autopilot problems that Tesla was never able to resolve.

Plaintiff’s attorneys hold that Tesla either knew or should have known about the vehicle software’s defects that consequently left owners and operators of the Model X in danger of crashing, and moreover, Tesla either knew or should have known that said owners and operators were wholly unaware of the Model X’s defects. Thus, these operators should have been notified of the software issues, sparing them of potential harm. Instead, Mr. Huang was unknowingly driving a computer-operated vehicle that had the potential to malfunction and crash at any moment, and this potential was tragically actualized resulting in Mr. Huang’s death.

On the morning of Sunday, May 20, 2018, a helicopter crash in a marsh in St. Charles Parish claimed the life of one crew member and injured two others. None of the victims resided in Louisiana. One passenger died from his injuries in the crash and was pronounced dead at the scene. Another crewman suffered severe injuries possibly a fractured spine, but the pilot sustained less severe injuries. The pilot and crewmen worked for a company that Entergy subcontracted with to conduct routine inspections on transmission lines. According to the investigation, the helicopter’s landing gear caught on one of the power lines and caused the crash.

Three friends preparing for a cookout heard the crash and jumped into action to rescue any survivors. Due to the marshy terrain, the three men jumped into an amphibious vehicle to get to the crash site. Upon approaching the crash site, the men described a “frightening” scene with smoke billowing and the marsh grass ablaze around the downed helicopter. The rescuers took the crew’s helmets and started scooping marsh water onto the flames. One of the men took the pilot to a nearby road in order to direct first responders to the crash site. First responders were able to access the crash site via airboat and rescue the two survivors.

After an unfortunate crash like this one, Louisiana Law provides remedies for victims to recover for their injuries. Since the crash occurred during the course and scope of the passengers’ employment, the injured victims may seek worker’s compensation. Moreover, the family of the deceased crewmen may bring a wrongful death action pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.2. The family members have one year from the date of this crash to bring the action to recover.

More manufacturing defects with replacements airbags, giving rise to products liability claims, have required an automotive replacement parts corporation to issue yet another recall, affecting as many as 230,000 vehicles. The vehicles affected by BMW AG’s most recent recall had replacement airbags manufactured by Petri, a German company owned by Takata Corp., installed after a crash. The inflators used, called the Takata PSDI-4 inflators, can explode in a crash—even one at low speed—and spray those occupying the vehicle with metal shards. These regulators are filled with ammonium nitrate, an explosive chemical with power similar to dynamite. If the chemical degrades over time, the airbags can deploy with so much force that the metal casings are destroyed, sending the metal shards into the unsuspecting vehicle occupants. Around 14,600 of these inflators were shipped to the U.S. between 2002 and 2015 for replacement use. This recall is one of the largest recalls in motor vehicle history, due in part to the 17 deaths these vehicles have caused worldwide and brought to the forefront by products liability lawyers. In the U.S. alone, these airbags have been linked to 11 deaths and 180 injures. Several vehicle drivers and passengers have sued Takata claiming injuries from the metal shrapnel. The Center for Auto Safety’s executive director, Michael Brooks, has said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) should investigate whether these airbags were used by other vehicle manufacturers. This is needed, as the airbags may have been used by a dozen or more car manufacturers, including Honda, GM, and Volkswagen. BMW already has vehicles with defective airbags under recall, bringing the total to over 1.5 million cars. The car models affected by this most recent recall are some 2001-2002 X5 SUVs, 2000-2002 3 Series, and 2001-2005 5 Series models.

Takata Corp. has also recently entered into an agreement to plead guilty in an investigation by the DOJ concerning the exploding airbags. This settlement comes with a $1 billion payment. Of the $1 billion payment, $25 million will go to the U.S. and $975 million will be paid as restitution to carmakers and those injured by the airbags. Specifically, Takata’s settlement means it will admit to misleading industry regulators, car manufacturers, and ultimately the consumers about the safety of the replacement airbags. This settlement also means Takata will be independently monitored for compliance for the next three years. The recall tied to the airbags has already plagued the corporation and is expected to surpass 100 million. Just two years ago, the corporation signed an agreement to pay a $70 million fine to U.S. regulators because of selective, inaccurate, and incomplete information provided concerning the airbag regulators. The NHTSA has said that this fine could rise to $200 million if the corporation does not finish the recalls within three years. This process will be long and arduous for Takata, as there are approximately 46 million recalled airbag inflators in 29 million vehicles in the U.S. alone. This number could rise over the next three years, affecting as many as 42 million consumer vehicles and 69 million inflators.

Volkswagen is experiencing similar recall problems, issuing a recall affecting hundreds of thousands of Audi models. These recalls stem from two airbag defects and overheating coolant pumps. One of the airbag recalls affects approximately 234,054 Audi Q5 models from 2011 to 2017. This recall stems from a sunroof drainage issue which can corrode the airbag’s inflator canister causing it to rupture and spray the vehicle occupants with metal shards. The second airbag recall affects 5,901 Audi and Volkswagen cars from 2017 and 2018 Audi A4, A6, A7, Volkswagen Golf, e-Golf, and Tiguan models. These airbags may not deploy properly. These models may also experience issues with the seat-belt pretensioners, the device designed to pull a seat belt tight in a crash, not working properly.

Contact Information