Seattle Personal Injury Attorney

Posts Tagged ‘Defective Product’

A humor website that lists various “dumb laws” reckons the Infant Crib Safety Act to number among that category. The Infant Crib Safety Act requires that cribs sold retail in Washington meet certain safety requirements. Each and every safety requirement in the Act is based on experience. Each safety requirement addresses a hazard that has seriously harmed or killed infants in cribs. The safety requirements are not hypotheticals.

Some of the requirements in the Infant Crib Safety Act of necessity sound arbitrary.  For instance, experience teaches that prominent corner posts sticking above the end panels of cribs pose a hazard because children’s clothes can get and has gotten caught on high corner posts, presenting a serious strangling hazard.

Like speed limits, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Why 35 mph in a given area? Why not 30 mph?  It is of necessity somewhat arbitrary. Yet few of us would want to travel on the roadways if there were no speed limits.

Experience teaches that corner posts on cribs more than 1/6 inch higher than the end panels are a hidden hazard most parents would not be aware of intuitively.  And that is why this and other safety requirements exist.

Also, the website states with misleading broadness that “you” are breaking the law if “you” sell a crib that is not in compliance with the Act.   Well, only if “you” are a commercial user as defined in the Act, which includes “you” if and only if “you” deal in cribs or if “you” hold yourself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to cribs. This includes, for example, “child care facilities and family child care homes licensed by the department of social and health services.”[1]

So, unless “you” fall into that definition, and most of us parents and ordinary consumers certainly do not, “you” are not breaking this law by buying or selling a non-compliant crib in a private sale. Nevertheless, it is prudent to discard older cribs and purchase newer, safer ones that meet all current safety standards.

And, no. Children’s safety is not dumb and this is not a dumb law.

A elderly woman went to Best Buy. Another shopper struck her from behind with their cart and injured her. She did not know the identity of the person who ran their cart into her, or whether they had anything in the cart basket that would have obstructed their view.

She sued Best Buy and the shopping cart manufacturer alleging the carts were designed dangerously because the lower base is longer than the upper basket impairing the average shopper’s view of the base, thereby creating a potential trip/knock down hazard. She claimed the cart’s negligent design was a proximate cause of the incident because the upper basket impaired the following customer’s view of the lower base of the cart. She alleged Best Buy failed to maintain a reasonably safe store by allowing customers to use the dangerously designed carts.[1]

The woman retained an expert who testified that “the design of the cart is such that it contributes to this type of accident; it’s foreseeable that this type of accident is going to happen.”  He did not state, however, that on a more probable than not basis the design of the cart was the proximate cause of the accident.

The expert conceded no shopping cart industry design standards exist. And he did not state on a more probable than not basis that the customer ran into the woman because of the alleged design defect, that the basket impaired the customer’s view of the front of the base. Because her alleged design defect claim entails the design of the basket in relation to the customer’s ability or inability to view the front of the base of the cart, the Court ruled she cannot prove on a more probable than not basis that the alleged design defect was a proximate cause of the incident.

The Court of Appeals upheld dismissal.

Our personal injury law firm did not participate in the lawsuit described in this article. 

 A man was killed and his wife injured when the Harley-Davidson motorcycle he was riding crossed several lanes and collided with a guardrail. The next day the wife received a recall notice informing her that the main circuit breaker on the motorcycle might have a defect that could cause it to “open due to reasons other than for which it was designed,” therefore, causing a “‘quit while riding’ situation.”

 Suit was filed alleging Harley-Davidson was liable under the Washington Products Liability Act.[1] Read the rest of this entry »

By now we have all heard about the Toyota recalls.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration five deaths and 17 injuries have been attributed to unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles since 2006.[1] Read the rest of this entry »

By personal injury lawyer Scott Eller

In a recent opinion the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a products liability case brought against the retail business that sold an allegedly defective bicycle.

The plaintiff had been injured when the front tire of the bicycle failed the very first time he rode the bicycle.  The plaintiff alleged that the tire failure was due to the retailer improperly installing the front brakes.

Among other defenses the retailer alleged there was no proof of proximate causation.  The case was dismissed on summary judgment.  This result was upheld by Division III of the Court of Appeals.

The plaintiff’s case was complicated by the fact that shortly after the accident the bicycle was stolen and no longer available as evidence.  The Court found that the only evidence of negligence were the stale and inadmissible hearsay statements of the unknown Costco employee and of a repairman from years earlier.

The Court noted that “proximate cause is ordinarily a jury question but may be determined on summary judgment if reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion. …[P]roof of proximate cause must rise above speculation or conjecture.”

The plaintiff had stated in deposition testimony that he “did not inspect the bicycle on the day of the accident. He did not know why the bicycle tire blew out or if the brakes were assembled improperly…In fact [the plaintiff] conceded that he did not ‘know the facts’ regarding the alleged deficient assembly”.

The outcome may have been different if the repairman could recollect what was allegedly wrong with the brake assembly and/or if the bicycle were still available in its unaltered condition for inspection by expert witnesses.

As it was, the Court held that the plaintiff could not prove his injuries were caused by the retailers alleged negligence or breach of warranty.

A product liability claim may be based on breach of warranty.  A manufacturer may be liable under Washington products liability law even in the absence of design defects, construction defects, or a failure to warn if the product fails a warranty. A warranty may be expressed or implied. Read the rest of this entry »

A product liability claim may be based on a theory of failure to warn.[1] The standard, like design defect product liability claims, is the reasonable expectations of the consumer rather than foreseeability.[2] Read the rest of this entry »

To prove a design defect products liability claim the injured party must prove that a manufacturer’s product was not reasonable safe as designed and caused injury.[1] The injured part may prove a design defect by either of two tests, the risk-utility test or the consumer expectations test.[2] Read the rest of this entry »