product liability

July 20, 2025

July 2025 Product Liability Updates: Major Recalls, New Laws, and Legal Trends

At Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers, we track the latest product liability news to protect consumers and ensure that dangerous products are held to account. July 2025 brought a series of major recalls, a landmark legislative proposal, and significant court decisions, all of which had the potential to impact the rights of injury victims, making it an important time to consult a product liability lawyer.

Major Recalls Affecting Consumers in July 2025

Walmart Ozark Trail Water Bottle Recall. One of the most significant recalls this month involved Walmart’s Ozark Trail 64-oz stainless steel insulated water bottles. Approximately 850,000 units were recalled after reports of exploding lids resulted in serious injuries, including permanent blindness. Documents reveal that Walmart was aware of the risk as early as 2018, but attributed incidents to misuse. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission pushed for the recall after another injury in 2024. Consumers should stop using the bottles immediately and return them for a refund.

June 17, 2025

Igloo Flip & Tow Rolling Coolers Recalled—Again

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A Growing Recall Reaches 1.2 Million Coolers

On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Igloo Products Corp. is expanding its February recall of 90-quart Flip & Tow Rolling Coolers. Another 130,000 units have been added, bringing the total to nearly 1.2 million coolers pulled from the market. The tow-handle design can pinch users’ fingers against the body, creating a serious risk of fingertip amputations and crushing injuries. A Boston product liability lawyer can help victims understand their legal options and pursue compensation for injuries caused by defective consumer products like this one.

The Hazard and the Injury Record

February 8, 2024

Philips BiPAP & CPAP Recall: Risks & Legal Insight

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In an unprecedented move that has caught the attention of healthcare providers and patients alike, Philips Respironics issued a recall for specific models of its BiPAP and CPAP machines in 2021. This recall raises significant concerns for individuals relying on these devices for respiratory support, marking a critical juncture in the realm of patient care and medical device reliability. The announcement has sent ripples through the medical community, prompting a reevaluation of the safety and efficacy of such essential respiratory support devices. Recognizing the gravity of this situation, Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers is committed to advocating for the rights and well-being of our clients.

Important Update on Philips Respironics Machine Recalls

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued critical updates on the recall of specific Philips Respironics CPAP, BiPAP, and ventilator machines, highlighting the serious nature of the situation with 561 deaths associated with these devices since the recall began in 2021. These machines, essential for individuals with sleep apnea and other respiratory conditions, have been identified as having significant issues that could pose severe health risks to users. The alarming number of associated fatalities underscores the urgency for affected individuals to take appropriate actions and seek guidance.

January 19, 2024

Safety Alert: 4.8 Million BlendJet Portable Blenders Recalled

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In a significant safety announcement, BlendJet has initiated a recall of about 4.8 million BlendJet 2 Portable Blenders due to fire and laceration hazards. This recall also extends to approximately 117,000 units sold in Canada. The urgency of this recall stems from the risk posed by these blenders, which can overheat or catch fire, and the blender blades can break off, creating dangerous situations for users.

If you or someone you know has been affected by the BlendJet 2 Portable Blender recall, it’s essential to act promptly to protect your rights and well-being. Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers is experienced in handling product liability cases and is ready to assist you in navigating the legal complexities associated with this recall. Your safety is a top priority, and we are here to provide the support and legal expertise you need during this challenging time.

Details of the Recall

July 24, 2023

EzriCare & Delsam Pharma Eye Drops Lawsuit

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A series of lawsuits have recently been initiated against EzriCare and Delsam Pharma, two pharmaceutical companies whose artificial tear eye drops have been linked to a multi-state bacterial outbreak. The legal battle against these two companies is intensifying as more lawsuits are filed after the recall, drawing substantial attention from various sectors.

At Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers, our team of experienced attorneys is committed to advocating for clients in product liability lawsuits. We specialize in cases arising from injuries caused by defective products, such as the EzriCare & Delsam Pharma Eye Drops.

The Intricacies of the Lawsuit

April 19, 2019

FDA Halts Sale of Transvaginal Mesh amid Lawsuits over Defective Medical Products

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week issued an order to immediately halt the sale and distribution of pelvic mesh product for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Boston Scientific and Coloplast are the only two companies in the U.S. still selling mesh to treat pelvic prolapse. The FDA order immediately prohibits the sale of Boston Scientific’s Uphold Lite and Xenform mesh products, as well as Coloplast’s Restorelle DirectFix.

Our medical device injury attorneys have been watching the issue closely as tens of thousands of women have been seriously injured by mesh implantation. Still, Boston Scientific and Coloplast have continued to market and sell the product 7 years after the FDA issued an emergency order mandating device makers prove their products are safer and more effective than traditional surgical repair.

March 15, 2019

Sandy Hook Families Lawsuit Against Remington Allowed to Proceed

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In a landmark decision the Connecticut Supreme Court this week reinstated a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook school-shooting victims against Remington, one of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers.

Families of nine victims and one survivor of the Newton, Connecticut school shooting sued Remington Outdoor Co. Inc. and other defendants, including a gun wholesaler and a local retailer, alleging wrongful marketing and unethical advertising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). In the narrow 4-3 ruling, justices dismissed a case against the defendants based on negligent entrustment.

Some are hailing the decision as a landmark victory against gun violence. Since passage of the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903,) gunmakers have enjoyed near complete immunity for liability over gun violence. With certain specific exceptions, the PLCAA immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability for crimes committed by third parties using their weapons.

Our Massachusetts product liability attorneys note this claim illustrates the many ways in which a product liability lawsuit can hold manufacturers accountable. However, this particular lawsuit has a narrow, treacherous pathway to success as Remington will almost certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which must decide whether to allow state consumer law to trump federal protections in place to protect gunmakers.

February 18, 2019

Dangerous Products: Insurers, Defendants, Victims Battle Over Liability

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The increasing number of dangerous, defective and deadly products being marketed to the American consumer continues to have a significant impact on our health and welfare.

Property casualty insurance advisors continue to add exclusions even as they push corporations to increase coverage for product liability, noting adequate product liability insurance is not just for manufacturers. Under the law, any entity involved in the supply chain of a defective product, including suppliers, retailers and distributors, can be held liable for injury.

All makers and sellers of products sold to U.S. consumers, whether they be artificial hips or baby cribs, have an obligation under the law to ensure their products are safe when used as intended and are recalled in a timely fashion if they prove dangerous or defective. Common assertions in a Massachusetts product liability claim include dangerous design or poor manufacturing, lack of proper warnings, and breach of expressed or implied warranty.

March 19, 2018

Appeals Court Weighs in on Hybrid Medical Device Lawsuit

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

When it comes to medical device litigation, such as those involving defective hip replacement or knee replacement hardware, many of these devices are subject to the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. New medical devices are given a class designation – Class I, II or III – to indicate degree of risk, with Class III medical devices posing the greatest risk. A device that is designated as a Class III under the MDA is given express preemption from state requirements (which can be different or more stringent than federal rules), as noted in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. In effect, this means such product liability lawsuits must be pursued in federal court.

But what happens if the medical device consists of components that have different class designations? These are becoming increasingly common in everything from hip implant devices to pain dispensing pumps. It’s created a jurisdictional conflict, with plaintiffs and defendants arguing over which courts should handle these matters.

Now, it appears we have some direction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a precedential ruling in a case of first impression filed by a plaintiff who alleged a British medical device maker negligently designed a hip replacement system. The ruling is the first time a court has taken on the question of whether product liability claims concerning a device made of components in different classifications are preempted by federal law. Answer: They are. That meant plaintiff’s claims of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty were expressly preempted and dismissed. However, the court reversed dismissal of plaintiff’s other claims that were adequately pleaded and not preempted, namely off-label promotion in violation of federal law and loss of consortium (filed by his wife). Those claims will proceed. Continue reading

February 25, 2018

Massachusetts Workers’ Comp Cases Often Yield Product Liability Lawsuits

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Many work injury situations exist wherein a workers’ compensation attorney may seek to maximize a client’s recovery from job-related injuries by examining whether we might apply a broader liability theory, such as product liability. We don’t need to limit claims to the Massachusetts workers’ compensation system because often, a dangerous product – such as a defective machine, tool or vehicle – is to blame. In many cases, we can keep the workers’ compensation claim intact while also pursuing a product liability claim against the defective product manufacturer.

Third-party recovery may be initiated by either the worker or the workers’ compensation insurer under MGL c. 152 section 15. (Insurers must wait at least seven months to initiate a claim, while the worker can file immediately.)

The product liability attorneys at Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers have the resources and experience to pursue both workers’ compensation and third-party liability claims, in particular those that stem from cases wherein product defects are responsible for on-the-job injuries. These can include cases of defective:

Industrial equipment
Dollies
Warehouse vehicles
Mobile warehouse storage-shelving units
Vehicles/ vehicle parts (tires, airbags, brakes, seat belts)
Forklifts
Scissor lifts
Ladders/ scaffolding
Cleaning equipment
Power tools