Articles Tagged with Boston defective products lawyer

Cases against big tobacco companies are not as common as they were in the 1990s and early 2000s, but people are still dying from lung cancer and suffering from other smoking-related illnesses such as  Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and cases are still being filed by products liability attorneys across the nation including our Greater Boston area.  The main issue in these cases is how to deal with any fault attributed to plaintiff.  While there was a time when the general public was not aware of the harm smoking could cause, and there was even a time when R.J. Reynolds used to advertise “More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette,” the dangers of smoking have long since been publicized.

Smith v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Boston products liability lawsuitsIn Smith v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Eleventh Circuit, surviving spouse of plaintiff filed a products liability lawsuit against the tobacco company which produced her preferred brand of cigarettes. She smoked regularly for decades and eventually died of various diseases often associated with long-term smoking of cigarettes. At trial, a jury found in favor of plaintiff, but defendant appealed arguing the jury award should be reduced due to plaintiff’s alleged in negligence in choosing to smoke on a regular basis for many years. This particular case was filed under a theory of wrongful death. Continue reading

Food service businesses and food product manufacturers both have a responsibility to ensure the the items they serve and sell are reasonably safe for public consumption. Plaintiffs in these cases must show the manufacturer or food provider was not reasonably careful in distributing the product, and that the illness or injury suffered was causally connected to that breached duty of care.

If a person goes to a restaurant, consumes food that was negligently handled and becomes sick with food poisoning, that generally falls under the auspices of general negligence. On the other hand, if you purchase a prepackaged food item and become sick due a manufacturing or production defect, we are likely dealing with a products liability matter. That difference is important because pursuant to the Massachusetts version of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), this transaction falls under what is known as the sale of goods, and special rules apply.  The U.C.C. was adopted by our state is found in Chapter 106 of the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.).

According to Reuters, a French manufacturer of baby formula has just issued a full-scale international recall of baby food products. This is a major recall because the French company is one of the world’s larges makers of baby formula. The reason for the recall is because of alleged salmonella poisoning.  It has been reported that 26 babies have already been sickened as a result of consuming formula that was tainted with salmonella. tainted food lawyer Continue reading

There are many reasons a car accident can occur in Boston. Most of the time, the crash occurs as a result of an at-fault driver who was engaged in negligent driving.  However, in some cases, including single-vehicle accidents, we are actually dealing with a products liability issue.

Boston Products Liability Attorneys A products liability case is a type of civil lawsuit, still based upon a theory of negligence, like many others, but in these cases, the accident was caused by a defectively designed product, including a motor vehicle, or a product that had a hidden danger, and the company, dealer, or supplier failed to warn potential plaintiff’s (customers) of that known danger. Continue reading

According to a recent news article from Autoweek, BMW has issued a major recall of 45,000 older 7 Series vehicles.  These sedans were made between 2005 and 2008, and all feature what the company called Comfort Access and Soft Close automatic doors.  These doors are designed to close softly rather than slamming closed, as many other car doors do.  This was considered a luxury feature at the time these cars were manufactured.

Boston Product Liability While this is the first door recall for the cars made during those specific model year vehicles, it is not the first recall involving these automatic-closing doors.  The company’s 2012 vehicles also featured a version of these doors, and a major recall was issued.  The reason for all of these recalls involving this type of luxury door is because customers have reported the doors opening by themselves while the car was traveling at highway speeds.  In some cases, the doors could come off, causing serious personal injury to those in other vehicles, as the door could cause significant damage. Fortunately, there have been no reports of serious injury as of this point.  The company is urging all drivers and passengers to make sure their seat belts are fastened until they can get the doors fixed, so they do not get ejected from the vehicle should the doors fall off at highway speeds. Continue reading

Over the past year, Volkswagen has been forced to issue a number of recalls for serious vehicle defects that pose risk to consumer safety.  This is not only involving Volkswagen models, but also Audi vehicles, which the company also manufactures. This latest round of recalls involves nearly 600,000 vehicles and is the result of two distinct defective systems.  This is not related to the defective anti-lock brake issue that already caused a major recall in January 2017.

carAccording to the Daily News, this latest round of recalls involves 2013 to 2017 Audi sedans and SUVs that have a 2.0-liter engine equipped with a turbocharger. In these vehicles, the electric coolant pump can become blocked while the engine is running.  If this occurs, the engine can overheat.  Normally, when a car overheats, the car will start billowing a foul smelling steam from under the hood and a temperature light will come on.  This will normally cause the car to stall.  However, in this case, the blocked coolant system can result in the car overheating to the point where it ignites into a vehicle fire, which can obviously result in serious injury or death. Continue reading

In the last few years the use of nicotine vaporizers has become extremely popular to the point where we frequently see so-called “vape” shops in strip malls and shopping mall kiosks across the nation including the greater Boston area.

smokeIn some cases, people are vaping to quit smoking or reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke in a day.  They see vaping as a means of ultimately quitting smoking. For others, they simply like to vape and have no intention of stopping.  There are variety of reasons vaping nicotine has become so popular in recent years. Continue reading

Volkswagen is no stranger to recalls.   Most people are likely familiar with the major scandal that came to light when federal regulators discovered the company was producing cars that would downgrade engine performance on “low emission” diesel vehicles during emissions checks at a environmental inspection stations.

carAs it turned out, the cars were quipped with software as part of their on-board diagnostics (OBD) package that would detect when the vehicle’s emission levels were being tested and respond with a reduction in engine output so the vehicle could pass.  This resulted in billions of dollars in fines and refunds for the company itself and several employees. Continue reading

In Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., an appeal before the Supreme Court of Alabama, plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a 2004 GMC pickup truck when he suffered a serious injury to his spinal cord. He was reportedly a victim of a drunk driver.

According to court records, plaintiff was in the pickup truck being driven by his friend when another driver allegedly ran a stop sign and collided with them.  That motorist was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.  When the collision occurred, the pickup truck in which plaintiff was riding flipped over and rolled twice, resulting in substantial damage to the vehicle.  The point of the collision was the passenger door where plaintiff was sitting.  Fortunately, he was wearing his seatbelt at the time of the serious car accident, sodriver he was not ejected from the vehicle.  When not wearing a seat belt, ejections are common and can often result in death. Continue reading

According to a recent news feature from CNN Money, there is significant confusion when it comes to the recent recall of Galaxy Note 7 smart phones manufactured by Samsung after some of the models exploded.  The reason for the confusion in part is because there are two different suppliers of batteries, and the company has chosen not to call this a recall, but rather a return and replacement program.  While the company may wish to use this more innocuous sounding description, federal regulators have chosen to stick with the more familiar name, calling it a defective product recall.

mobile-phone-4-1490452However, before we look at the more confusing aspects of this recall, lets look at what we do know. We know that these smart phones that retail for over $900 are bursting into flames and basically exploding while people are holding them.  The company says that the problem only occurs while the phones are charging, but since many people charge their phones while using them to talk, text, and use other apps, this poses a significant danger. Continue reading

In Hosford v. BRK Brands, Inc., a case from the Alabama Supreme Court, a four-year-old girl was killed in fire in her family’s mobile home in May 2011.   Her mother and other surviving family members filed a personal injury lawsuit with a wrongful death claim against the maker of the two smoke detectors that were installed in the home at the time of her tragic death.

smoke-alarm-1420153They made various claims that are common in products liability cases, such as failure to warn, negligence and claims of wantonness. Failure to warn of a known danger is one of the more common claims, because it is an allegation the maker of a particular product was aware or should have been aware of a certain type of danger when the product was being used for its intended purpose and failed to warn the plaintiff of that potential danger. Continue reading

Contact Information