Articles Posted in product liability

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In product liability cases, defendants will often try and shift blame for any injuries onto the plaintiff. For example, a manufacturer of an allegedly defective product will say it was the plaintiff’s carelessness that caused his accident, rather than any negligence on the manufacturer’s part.

Thurmond v. Federal Signal Corporation

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta recently threw out a product liability lawsuit on just that basis. The plaintiff in the case of Thurmond v. Federal Signal Corporation worked for the City of Loganville, Georgia. The plaintiff and one of his coworkers were tasked with repairing a sewer cleaner known as the Vactor 2013, which is manufactured by the defendant.

When someone is injured by a dangerous or defective product, Georgia law permits the victim to bring a personal injury claim against not only the product’s manufacturer, but in some cases against the retailer that sold the product, as well. More precisely, the seller can be held responsible if the evidence shows it had “actual or constructive knowledge that the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time of sale.”

Gomez v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.

To give an illustration of how the law is applied in practice, here is a recent decision from a federal judge in Athens, Georgia, in an ongoing seller liability case. This lawsuit centers on an allegedly defective plastic gas can purchased from a Harbor Freight store in Valdosta in 2012. The plaintiffs are not the original purchaser, but rather her neighbors.

When your child is seriously injured due to an apparently defective consumer product, you rightfully want to seek justice against the companies responsible for bringing the dangerous item to market. Under Georgia law, there are a number of possible legal theories to support a product liability claim. Of course, the facts of each particular case will dictate which theories are applicable.

Morgan v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.

For example, a federal judge in Gainesville recently denied most of a motion to dismiss a product liability lawsuit arising from injuries sustained by a minor child due to an allegedly defective bow-and-arrow set. According to the plaintiffs, the child’s parents, they purchased the set from a popular sporting goods retailer in Gainesville. The lawsuit alleges that a retail salesperson “assisted” the plaintiffs in selecting the particular bow-and-arrow set at issue.

Many Georgia workers are injured on the job due to defective equipment. While workers’ compensation covers an employer’s liability for such accidents, the injured worker may still file a civil lawsuit against the third-party manufacturers who were responsible for designing or manufacturing the equipment.

Vazquez v. Raymond Corporation

For example, a federal judge in Gainesville, Georgia, recently rejected an attempt to dismiss a product liability claim filed by a local forklift operator. In July 2016, the plaintiff was using a forklift rented by his employer to move a pallet of tires in a warehouse. At some point, the plaintiff “lost control of the forklift and crashed into a metal column,” which ended up crushing his left foot, according to court records.

Georgia law holds manufacturers liable if they fail to exercise “reasonable care” when designing or producing its products. In practical terms, this does not mean the product must be 100% safe. Rather, it must be “reasonably safe for intended or foreseeable uses.”

Woods v. ARE Accessories, LLC

When is a product’s use “foreseeable” to the manufacturer? That is a question the Georgia Court of Appeals recently confronted in a product liability case involving a truck cap. The defendant in this case is a popular manufacturer of truck caps–that is, the shells that fit over the flatbed of a pickup truck.

Contact Information