Blog

Medical Devices

view all

Auto Accidents

view all

Labor Law

view all

FDA and Prescription Drugs

view all

Products Liability

view all

Medical Malpractice

view all

Wrongful Death

view all

Personal Injury

view all

Trasylol

view all

General

view all

News

view all

Library

FDA and Prescription Drugs

Recruiting

Newsletter

General


Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP Blog

Blog Category:

Products Liability

    8/21/2008
    Paul Napoli
    Comments (0)

    Class Action Product Liability Case Against DaimlerChrysler Failed

    The class action product liability case against DaimlerChrysler was put to rest as the judge sided with the defendant because it was proven that the plaintiffs did not incur problems with head gaskets until after warranty expired. The delayed filing of the class action suit also played a part in the failure of the suit because the complaint was filed after the statue of limitations had run out. The class action suit had alleged that the Neon, manufactured by Dodge, was built with defective head gaskets. The class action case’s complaint sited that DaimlerChrysler broke their duty of express and implied warranties, as well as committing fraud. However, the judge did not find this to be true and found that the plaintiff’s Dodge Neon was no longer under warranty when it began experiencing problems.


    In dealings like these not only was the vehicle no longer under warranty, but the statue of limitations was also expired. A big issue for the defense was that the vehicle’s head gasket had already lived through its guaranteed warranty of 3 years or 36,000 thousand miles. What was also said was that upon being sold, the Dodge Neon’s head gaskets were already defective because they were not meant to last forever. Therefore once the head gasket had lived past its warranty without any problems, it was deemed not liable. In a products liability case it is necessary to prove that a duty of care was established and one of the parties breached that contract. In this case Dodge Neon had a duty of care for as long as the warranty was upheld


    This instance of product liability is something that can appear to be very controversial because of the commitment and responsibility of the individual dealerships. When plaintiffs go above and beyond a reasonable claim, the dealership will fight it. However, if the claim is semi reasonable the dealership might settle the suit just to stay in good standings with their consumers. In businesses that sell products and services that have fierce competition, reputation is everything. There having a negative product liability suit against a dealership is something that is looked very downed upon. DaimlerChrysler did the right thing in fighting for the reputation of their business because they filled all obligations and contracts.


    Products Liability cases can be hard to prove due to the fact that manufacturers must only show that "ordinary care under the circumstances" was applied to avoid liability for negligence. It is here where an experience team of lawyers can help you can determine how you can proceed with your case. Napoli Bern Ripka has the experience in finding the evidence necessary to show the contrary. Napoli Bern Ripka is a premiere personal injury firm having over 60 years of experience combined. Paul J Napoli and Marc J Bern are Super Lawyers, Members of Law Dragon which represent top performing lawyers. They have access to the top resources needed to get the settlement you deserve, not what is offered.

    Read More about "Class Action Product Liability Case Against DaimlerChrysler Failed"


    Labels: napolibern.com, New York City
    8/7/2008
    Paul Napoli
    Comments (0)

    Product Liability: Peanut Butter Case Ruled Negative for Class Action Suit

    It all started with a batch of Salmonella tainted peanut better, which was found in ConAgra the producer of Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter. A class action suit was being put together and was brought to court, in which the judge determined that filing a class action suit would not be the most efficient way to distribute compensation because there are two different classes of people involved with the litigation. The first group consisted of people who bought the peanut butter containing salmonella bacterium, and the second group is those who got sick or died from consuming the tainted peanut butter.  The judge rules for ConAgra to pay $33million dollars to Peter Pan retailers and consumers would be a far more efficient settlement than continuing on with a class action suit.


                Jude Thrash explained, “Under the plaintiffs' trial plan, at least 6,000 individual trials on exposure, injury, causation, damages and other individual issues will have to be prosecuted whether or not a class is certified, presumably by the lawyers already retained by the personal injury claimants. This is not a case where class certification avoids clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly. ... If class certification is denied, these cases will go forward in essentially the same manner they would if a class were certified, only without an expensive, unnecessary, meaningless and largely uncontested 'common' issues trial." However, the plaintiff’s lawyers announced that they were not happy with the ruling. Despite the Product Liability case, there were also a number of cases filed with different state courts, however there has been no decision as to whether they will be deemed valid or not. 


                After the 2007 recall of ConAgra’s product of Peter Pan peanut butter, it was found that the plant had traces of salmonella, which is a very poisonous bacterium that can cause nausea, diarrhea, and stomach pain.  When ConAgra realized that the bacterium was taking home in its plant, they closed the plant. During this investigation it was found that on 20% of peanuts contained the conditions for the bacterium to replicate. It was reported by the Disease Control and Preventions that in 2007, over 600 people in 48 states had been affected with the bacteria after eating ConAgra’s brands of peanut butter. Over 70 people were hospitalized containing symptoms synonymous to salmonella poisoning. As far as the ruling held by Judge Thrash to recover damages goes, deemed that because there were so many different claims brought to court that it would be impossible to bring up as a class action suit. Also judge Thrash noted that, "The many differences among jurisdictions would prevent the Court from finding that common issues of law predominate on this claim." It was made known however than anyone who bought the contaminated peanut butter is able to get a full refund.


                Products Liability cases can be hard to prove due to the fact that manufacturers must only show that "ordinary care under the circumstances" was applied to avoid liability for negligence. It is here where an experience team of lawyers can help you can determine how you can proceed with your case. Napoli Bern Ripka has the experience in finding the evidence necessary to show the contrary. Napoli Bern Ripka is a premiere personal injury firm having over 60 years of experience combined. Paul J Napoli and Marc J Bern are Super Lawyers, Members of Law Dragon which represent top performing lawyers. They have access to the top resources needed to get the settlement you deserve, not what is offered.


     


    For the full article click here

    Read More about "Product Liability: Peanut Butter Case Ruled Negative for Class Action Suit"


    Labels: napolibern.com, New York City
    7/28/2008
    Oguz Ozdemir
    Comments (0)

    Pet Food Recall: Products Liability Class Action Settlement

    If you, a family member, or friend recently bought pet food and or treat products after March 16, 2007, that your pet consumed, you might be legible to join the class action product liability suit. The settlement known as, Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1850, Civil Action No. 07-2867, is with persons that distributed, handled, purchased for resale, supplied, manufactured, sold, or offered for sale. This includes pet food and or treat products for pets that may have contained contaminated wheat gluten or rice protein concentrate. These products were recalled beginning in March 2007, and any company or person who has sold these products after the recall is liable for the consequences.


                The settlement is viable in both the United States and Canada and includes pet food brand such as: Feline Classic, Giant Companion, Hill’s Country Fare, Iams, Master Choice, NutriPlan, Paws, Pet Pride, Wegmans, Natural Balance, Dollar General, Jerky Treats, Hannaford, ALPO, Pet Life and many more (for a complete listing of recalled products click here). Manufacturers that have been cited include the following: American Nutrition, Chenago Valley Pet Food, Menu Foods, American Nutrition, Del Monte, Diamond Pet Food, Nestle-Purina, Royal Canin, Sierra Pet Products, and Sunshine Mills.


                After the recall was established in March of 2007, these companies still distributed and sold the left over products to the public. This poor behavior on behalf of the pet food companies resulted in contamination of their products that was resold after they knew the recall existed. People who purchased the pet food and or whose pet consumed the recalled pet food products were damaged and that some pets were taken for screening, or may have became sick and may have died. The pet food companies that sold the recalled products agreed to create a twenty-four million dollar cash settlement fund. Eligible consumers and or pet owners may receive a cash payment for up to 100% of all documented economic damages they incurred related to their purchase of or their pet's consumption of the recalled products. Economic damage means the expenses you incurred related to your purchase or your pet's consumption of the Recalled Pet Food Products, including Veterinary bills, medication expenses, and other expenses such as lost wages and property damage.


                Besides recovering economic damages incurred related to the purchase of recalled products causing their pets harm with the proper documentation, consumers may also be able to receive up to $900 per pet who don’t have proper documentation. Consumers will have to complete a claim and give specific information about their economic damages.


    This settlement is open to both United States and Canadian residents; however there are different timelines that are being established. Products Liability cases can be hard to prove due to the fact that manufacturers must only show that "ordinary care under the circumstances" was applied to avoid liability for negligence. It is here where an experience team of lawyers can help you can determine how you can proceed with your case. Napoli Bern Ripka has the experience in finding the evidence necessary to show the contrary


     


    For more information on the Pet Food Recall click here

    Read More about "Pet Food Recall: Products Liability Class Action Settlement"


    Labels: napolibern.com, New York City
    7/7/2008
    Paul Napoli
    Comments (0)

    Lead Paint Ruling Overturned: Product Liability at Issue

    The product that caused more than 30,000 children to be poisoned is a lead based paint manufactured by Sherwin-Williams Company, NL Industries, and Millennium Holdings. In this product liability case, the three companies were subject to pay billions of dollars to clean up contaminated paint around the state. However the companies had asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court to overturn a jury verdict of Feb. 22, 2006. On Tuesday, the court did just that. The Rhode Island’s top court overturned the landmark decision holding the companies not liable.



    The lead in paint is added


    to speed drying, increase durability, retain a fresh appearance, and resist moisture that causes corrosion. Paint with significant lead content is still used in industry and by the military. Although lead improves paint performance, it is a dangerous substance. It is especially damaging to children under age six whose bodies are still developing. Lead causes nervous system damage, hearing loss, stunted growth, and delayed development. It can cause kidney damage and affects every organ system of the body. It also is dangerous to adults, and can cause reproductive problems for both men and women.


    It all started about 10 years ago in which the case was the first in the country seeking to hold pain makers responsible. The reason why this case is such a big deal is because Rhode Island’s decision could influence court decisions in other states, counties and cities where lead-poisoning lawsuits are pending. The lead paint case had drawn comparisons to the tobacco lawsuits that ultimately led to a settlement that cost cigarette makers more than $200 billion. The Rhode Island Supreme Court said the state failed to "establish that defendants interfered with a public right or that defendants were in control of the lead pigment they, or their predecessors, manufactured at the time it caused harm to Rhode Island children."


    The three companies made their product available to the public and thus are held responsible for the injuries that the lead pain caused. However, a products liability claim is based on the following causes of action: design defect, manufacturing defect, & failure to warn. It is often hard to prove negligence in product liability cases due to the fact that manufacturers must only show that "ordinary care under the circumstances" was applied to avoid liability for negligence.



    Although, the decision was overturned and the paint manufacturers are not liable, who is? What happens to the victims that were exposed to the toxic paint? Napoli Bern Ripka is a premiere personal injury firm having over 60 years of experience combined. Paul J Napoli and Marc J Bern are Super Lawyers, Members of Law Dragon which represent top performing lawyers.


    They have access to the top resources needed to get the settlement you deserve, not what is offered.


    For the full article on the landmark decision click here

     


     

    Read More about "Lead Paint Ruling Overturned: Product Liability at Issue"


    Labels: napolibern.com New York City
    6/27/2008
    Oguz Ozdemir
    Comments (0)

    Product Liability

    Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others that make their product available to the public are held responsible for the injuries that their products cause. A products liability claim is based on the following causes of action: design defect, manufacturing defect, & failure to warn. Common cases in product liability include pharmaceutical, tires, automobiles, trucks, children’s products, aviation components, medical devices, forklifts, all-terrain vehicles, military equipment and railroad equipment. Whether it was the Firestone Tire recall to numerous toy recalls, these defective products cause many injuries that involve serious medical problems and fatalities.


    According to Section 102(2) of the Uniform Product Liability Act, product liability includes "all claims or action brought for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the manufacture, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging, or labeling of any product." Product liability has become a popular topic among manufacturers and anyone involved or in fear of breaking this law. Small businesses must be specifically aware of their responsibilities under product liability due to their limited resources. All businesses should not only be aware of their responsibilities, but they should also be up to date about the proper warnings on products and labels. Also including warnings about potential hazards in regards to materials & ingredients.


    There are four main elements that must be present for a product liability case to be considered under the negligent tort principles: 1. the particular defendant owes a duty to the particular plaintiff to act as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. 2. There is a breach of such a duty by the defendant—that is, a failure to act reasonably. 3. There is an injury, including personal injury or property damage. 4. There is a causal link between defendant's breach of duty and injuries sustained by the plaintiff. This concept of negligence emprises everything from the product design to the testing of materials, are all susceptible to negligence.


    It is often hard to prove negligence in product liability cases due to the fact that manufacturers must only show that "ordinary care under the circumstances" was applied to avoid liability for negligence. It is here where an experience team of lawyers can help you can determine how you can proceed with your case. Napoli Bern Ripka has the experience in finding the evidence necessary to show the contrary

    Read More about "Product Liability"


    Labels: napolibern.com New York City

 

 

©2008 Napoli Bern LLP, All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission
Web Site Design, Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services and Content Management System
by Foster Web Marketing