Lowell Steiger's Los Angeles Law Blog

Power Windows: Danger to Children

    This morning I read a very common-sense article in the New York Times entitled Power Windows Pose Great Risk to Children, Says Consumer Group.  It piqued my interest so I decided to look a little further into the issue.

    It makes logical sense that, absent safety precautions, power windows are potentially quite dangerous.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates 1,995 power window related injuries (mostly minor) and six deaths per year.  Janette Fennell, president of KidsAndCars.org disputes these numbers saying that her phone and Internet surveys indicate that there have been about 13.6 million power window related injuries over an unspecified period of time.  Read their Press_Release.

    

    The NHTSA has imposed two requirements to make power windows safer:

    1.    All passenger vehicles must have recessed power switches by October 1, 2008

    2.    All power windows may be closed only by pulling up on a switch by October 1, 2010

    So, what kinds of injuries actually occur from power-window related accidents?  According to the NHTSA, 68% of the incidents result in fractures or crushed body parts.  Other injuries include bruising, dislocation, laceration, and strain or sprain.  Most frightening, though, are the deaths among children when their head, neck, or midsection have been trapped in the window for five or more minutes and resuscitation was impossible.  When there are multiple children in a car, those witnessing the injury are more likely to panic and call for help than try to operate the power window!

    Consumer Reports published a very informative piece entitled Which Power Window Switches Are Safer?  The article contains a well-produced video discussing one family's tragedy and further depicting and discussing three different types of power-window switches.

    The Consumer Reports article tells you what you can do:

Never leave children alone in a car or the keys in the car when kids are nearby. Pay close attention to the design and location of window switches when shopping for a new car. Here’s a basic rundown for the vehicles we’ve reviewed:

Horizontal rocker switches

Rocker switches (inherently risky) move the glass up when you press one end of the switch, down when you press the other.  Most vehicles from Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac, and the Saturn Ion.

Horizontal toggle switches

Toggle switches (also inherently risky) work when pushed forward or pulled back. Some vehicles from Chrysler including the Dodge Neon, Stratus, and Intrepid, and Dodge trucks.

Lever switches, the safer type

The lever switch, is safer because it makes it harder to raise the window accidentally. Lever switches must be pulled up to raise the glass. They generally have not been implicated in fatal injuries, according to KIDS AND CARS.  Acura, Audi, BMW, Chrysler Pacifica, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, most Isuzu models, Jaguar, Kia, Lexus, most Mazda models, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Saturn L and Vue, current Saab models, Subaru, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

I hope that this article has been helpful and informative.

If you, or someone you know, has been injured in an accident, please contact me immediately at

(323) 852-1100

lowell@steigerlaw.com

Skype (with or without video): Lowell_Steiger

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"   

Jury Awards Truck Driver $9.5 Million for Permanent Damage from Erectile Dysfunction Treatment

    This absolutely fascinating story comes out of Georgia where plaintiff John Henry Howard (a Georgia truck driver) sued defendant Boston Men's Health Center, Inc. for damages suffered after treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED).  A Dekalb State Court Jury of his peers awarded Howard $750,000 in compensatory damages. However, the jury also found that the defendant acted with an intent to cause harm and further awarded Howard $8.5 Million in punitive damages.  Howard was brilliantly represented by attorney W. Fred Orr II, who himself received bear hugs from 10 of the 12 jury members after the trial was over.

    Howard went to the clinic in an effort to resolve his ED.  The waiting room was filled with literature warning about the dangers of Viagra and Cialis, ED medications which are administered orally (i.e., the little blue pills).  The clinic staff advised Howard that their therapy was painless and based on a proprietary formula.

    They injected medication, whose primary ingredient was papaverine, directly into his penis. Papaverine was the treatment of choice until the introduction of Viagra in 1998.  Since that time, the Food and Drug Administration has warned that papaverine should not be used to treat ED.

    A macho man, Howard did not run scared when faced with the injection. However, he testified that "Not a man on the face of the earth would go into one of these places if they knew what they were going to do to them."   True, how painfully true.

    Not surprisingly, the injection gave him immediate results and Howard shelled out $1,200 for a six-month supply of the clinic's medication.  He was instructed to inject it into himself in the same location. He did and had "the best erection he's ever had in his life."  Unfortunately, that best erection lasted for a couple of days.  It had become painful, so he visited the clinic.  

    The staff removed blood from his penis in order to provide relief but that didn't work.  He wound up in the emergency room.  Eventually, he discovered that the medicine caused fibrosis and scar tissue to form.    

    Read the complete story from Law.com.

If you, or someone you know, has been similarly injured, 

please contact me immediately at

(323) 852-1100

lowell@steigerlaw.com

Skype (with or without video): Lowell_Steiger

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve" 

Testerone Gels: FDA Orders Label Warnings (Harmful to Children)

The Food and Drug Administration is requiring box warnings on two topical testosterone gels.  Click here for basic information on the male hormone, testosterone.  Here's the FDA report:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that it is requiring manufacturers of two prescription topical testosterone gel products, AndroGel 1% and Testim 1%, to include a boxed warning on the products’ labels. The agency is requiring this action after receiving reports of adverse effects in children who were inadvertently exposed to testosterone through contact with another person being treated with these products (secondary exposure).

The gels are approved for use in men who either no longer produce testosterone or produce it in very low amounts. Both products are applied once daily, to the shoulders or upper arms. Only AndroGel 1% is approved for application to the abdomen. Precautions in the current labels instruct users to wash their hands after using the product and to cover the treated skin with clothing.

“These drugs are approved for an important medical need, but can have serious, unintended side effects if not used properly,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “We must ensure that the adults using them are well-informed about the precautions needed to protect children from secondary exposure.”

In 2007, 1.4 million prescriptions for AndroGel—the most commonly dispensed gel form of testosterone—were dispensed by U.S. retail pharmacies. Approximately 25,000 of those were dispensed for off-label use in women. During the same period, some 370,000 prescriptions were dispensed for Testim, according to data from SDI: Vector One National. 

Despite the currently labeled precautions, as of Dec. 1, 2008, the FDA has received reports of eight cases of secondary exposure to testosterone in children ranging in age from nine months to five years. Since that time, additional reports of secondary exposure have been received by the agency and are presently under review.

Of the fully reviewed cases, adverse events reported in these children included inappropriate enlargement of the genitalia (penis or clitoris), premature development of pubic hair, advanced bone age, increased libido, and aggressive behavior. 

In most cases, the signs and symptoms regressed when the child no longer was exposed to the product. However, in a few cases, enlarged genitalia did not fully return to age-appropriate size and bone age remained modestly greater than the child’s chronological age.

In some cases, children had to undergo invasive diagnostic procedures and, in at least one case, a child was hospitalized and underwent surgery due to a delay in recognizing the underlying cause of the signs and symptoms.

Signs of inappropriate virilization (development of male secondary sexual characteristics) in children and the possibility of secondary testosterone exposure should be brought to a health care provider’s attention.

In most of the cases, users of these products failed to follow appropriate use instructions, resulting in direct contact between treated skin and the child.
     
The required label changes will provide additional information about the risk of secondary exposure and the steps that should be taken to reduce this risk. The FDA also is requiring that the manufacturers of these products develop a Medication Guide as part of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to ensure that the benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks.

The FDA recommends the following precautions be taken to minimize the potential for secondary exposure:

• Adults who use testosterone gels should wash their hands with soap and warm water after every application;
• Adults should cover the application site with clothing once the gel has dried;
• Adults should wash the application site thoroughly with soap and warm water prior to any situation where skin-to-skin contact with another person is anticipated;
• Children and women should avoid contact with testosterone application sites on the skin of men who use these products; and
• Adults should note that use of any similar, but unapproved, products from the marketplace –including the Internet– that can result in the same serious adverse effects should be avoided.

Health care professionals and consumers may report serious adverse events (side effects) or product quality problems with the use of these gels to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail, fax or phone.

Relevant Websites/Information

Testim Video: How to apply Testim

What is Testim?

Testim Side Effects: MedicineNet.com

Androgel Side Effects: eMed TV

Testosterone Gels Risky to Children: Web MD

FDA Orders Label Warnings for Testosterone Gels: ABC News

Testosterone Deficiency: The Urology Channel

Please Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/steigerlaw

If you, or someone you know, has been injured in a motorcycle or automobile (or similar) accident, please call me, Lowell Steiger, immediately at

(323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

Nautilus Recalls Bowflex® Home Gyms Due to Risk of Injury

You Can Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/steigerlaw

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued information regarding the Nautilus Bowflex Home Gyms (see below).  If you, or someone you know, has been injured as a result of this unit, please call the Law Office of Lowell Steiger to find out your rights.  Injuries from the Nautilus Bowflex (or other defective products) fall under the category of Product Liability.

Can you sue if you're injured as a result of a defective product?

Yes.  Injuries related to bad design or manufacture of a product fall into the product liability category.  If an injury is sustained as a result of bad design or manufacture, then everyone in the chain of commerce (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, retailer) can be held liable for that injury or injuries.  When you buy  or use a product, it is reasonable to assume that the product will be safe when used for its intended purpose.  It is also reasonable to assume that the product will warn you of any potential dangers.  If the product is then unsafe for use or if you have not been warned of its potential dangers, and if an injury occurs, then you have the legal right to take everyone in the chain of commerce to task.  Will they put up a defense?  Yes.  Are you guaranteed to prevail?  No.  However, an attorney experienced in the area of product liability will analyze the facts as they apply to the law and determine whether you have a viable case and proceed from there.   Click here for other Product Liability posts

The Scoop on the Nautilus Bowflex Home Gym Recall

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: Bowflex® Ultimate 2 Home Gyms

Units: About 78,000 (about 68,000 home gyms were recalled on December 6, 2007)

Importer: Nautilus Inc., of Vancouver, Wash.

Hazard: The home gym's horizontal seat rail is designed to be latched in a vertical position for storage. If the seat rail is not manually latched, it can fall unexpectedly on the user or a bystander, posing a risk of serious injury.

Incidents/Injuries: Nautilus has received 18 reports of injuries caused by unlatched seat rails that have fallen, resulting in head and shoulder lacerations, some requiring stitches or staples.

Description: This recall involves the Bowflex® Ultimate 2 Home Gyms. The home gyms are equipped with pulleys, resistance rods, and other equipment, which allow the user to perform a variety of exercises. “Bowflex Ultimate 2” is written on the vertical part of the frame.

Sold at: Specialty fitness retailers nationwide and through direct Nautilus sales from June 2005 through January 2009 for about $2,300.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumers may continue to use their home gyms for exercising, but should not place the seat rail in the vertical (storage) position until the repair is performed. Registered owners are being sent a free repair kit. Owners who have not received a repair kit by March 10, 2009 should contact the firm.

Firm’s Recall Hotline: (800) 259-9019 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT M-F or www.bowflex.com )
CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

You Can Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/steigerlaw

If you, or someone you know, has been injured, please call me immediately at

(323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

Paper Shredders Putting Kids and Pets at Risk of Major Injury

Yesterday I received an e-mail from a parent whose young child lost 3 fingers in a home paper shredder.  It happened in a flash.  The poor mother did everything she could to save the child's  little fingers but, alas, to no avail.  Fingers are no match for the blades of a paper shredder.  The fault of the parent?  I think not.  Can she sue someone for the injuries sustained by her child?  Yes.  Should she sue someone for the injuries sustained by her child?  Yes.  Read on.

Manufacturers of paper shredders, whether for home or business use, are aware of the potential dangers of their products.  It's not rocket science that a child's fingers, or a dog's tongue, are small enough to find there way into the paper entry chute.  Very few manufacturers have addressed this issue.  Later in this article you will find information on two manufacturers that provide paper shredders with built in safety features designed to prevent injuries to kids and pets.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission published an article on this very subject.  Paper Shredder Safety Alert says "From January 2000 through September 2005, CPSC received 50 reports of incidents involving finger amputations, lacerations, and other finger injuries from paper shredders. The majority of injuries were to young children under age 5."  The incidents happen so quickly that they can occur even in the presence of adult supervision!  They offer the following safety tips:

• Never allow children to operate paper shredders, even under adult supervision. Paper shredders can pull children’s fingers into the shredder mechanism.
• Place the paper shredder in an area less accessible to children.
• Unplug the paper shredder power cord when the shredder is not in use.
• Do not place hands or fingers in the shredder opening.
• Do not operate a paper shredder while wearing loose fitting clothing that may enter the shredder opening.
• Keep hair and items, such as a tie or a long necklace, away from the shredder opening.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission wrote an extensive article on the evaluation of paper shredder related finger injuries.  Read CPSC Evaluation of Finger Injuries.  This article is in .pdf format.  If you can't open it, click here to download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
   

Child Loses Fingers in Shredder (CBS News Video)

CBS News aired a video about the tragic story of Lisa Broadfoot's little boy Talan who "screamed, and then was begging me to get his hands out of this machine, saying, 'Please, Mommy, please, Mommy, get my hand out.' He was just screaming and crying and begging."  She rushed him to the hospital with the shredder still attached. He lost 3 fingers and, to this day, keeps asking his mommy when they're going to grow back.  Watch the video here.

Dog Shreds Tongue in Shredder (ABC News Video)

Kids aren't the only beings vulnerable to the possible horrors of the home paper shredder.  I found several instances of dogs shredding their tongues when trying to lick the paper shredder.  Shred the tongue to much and the doggie is a candidate for euthanasia because dogs use their tongues to drink water.  A doggie horror story was aired on ABC News.  Click here to watch the video.

Paper Shredder Horror Stories

Snopes.com has an article devoted to paper shredder horror stories too gruesome to discuss here.  You can go directly to their article on the web by clicking here  or to the .pdf version of the article by clicking here.

Child and Pet Safe Paper Shredders

A little research revealed that horrifyingly few manufacturers provide child or pet safe shredders.  I found two (2) such manufacturers: Fellowes and Royal.  Fellowes DS-1 and DS-2 both have the same SafeSense feature that turns off the blades if the paper entry slot is touched, thereby preventing fingers, tongues and tails from finding their way into the grasp of the life-changing blades.  Fellowes manufactures several other safe paper shredders including the Powershred P-57cs and SB-97cs models.

The Royal PX 110 MX paper shredder, with its patented throat safety guard, is also designed to protect children and pets from injury.

Please note that I have not personally used these shredders and am only reporting what I've been reading on the Internet.  In other words, I can't vouch for the viability of the safety claims made by these manufacturers.  You'll need to do your own research before purchasing any of these shredders.

Can You Sue For Paper Shredder Related Injuries?

Yes.  Injuries related to bad design or manufacture of a product fall into the product liability category.  If an injury is sustained as a result of bad design or manufacture, then everyone in the chain of commerce (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, retailer) can be held liable for that injury or injuries.  When you buy  or use a product, it is reasonable to assume that the product will be safe when used for its intended purpose.  It is also reasonable to assume that the product will warn you of any potential dangers.  If the product is then unsafe for use or if you have not been warned of its potential dangers, and if an injury occurs, then you have the legal right to take everyone in the chain of commerce to task.  Will they put up a defense?  Yes.  Are you guaranteed to prevail?  No.  However, an attorney experienced in the area of product liability will analyze the facts as they apply to the law and determine whether you have a viable case and proceed from there. 

What type of compensation are you entitled to?  The injured person is entitled to compensation for medical expenses, loss of earnings, future medical expenses and loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. 

Read more about product liability in the Case of the Exploding Wine Bottle.

If you, or someone you know, has been injured, please call me immediately at

(323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

Attorney General Brown Announces $62 Million Multi-State Settlement with Eli Lilly

Eli Lilly has settled once again for improperly marketing the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa.  I blogged on this subject earlier this year.  See Eli Lilly Settles Claims Over Zyprexa.  Then, later in the year, drug giant Merck settled cases over deceptive television advertisements. See $58 Million Merck Settlement To Change Deceptive TV Drug Advertisements.  Are the drug companies an evil empire?  Well, maybe so, but they are not beyond the reach of those that have our best interests in mind -- i.e., Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.  Here's the latest:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2008
Contact: Christine Gasparac: (916) 324-5500

Attorney General Brown Announces $62 Million Multi-State Settlement with Eli Lilly

SACRAMENTO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a record $62 million multi-state settlement with Eli Lilly and Company for improperly marketing the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa for use beyond the drug’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved uses.

“Eli Lilly put profits ahead of patients when it marketed Zyprexa for a use that had not been properly tested or approved, in many cases, putting young women at risk for weight gain, hypoglycemia and even diabetes,” Attorney General Brown said.

The settlement is the largest ever multi-state consumer protection-based pharmaceutical settlement. California will receive $5.6 million, the largest share of the award.

In his original complaint, Attorney General Brown alleged that Eli Lilly engaged in unfair and deceptive practices when it marketed Zyprexa for off-label uses and failed to adequately disclose the drug’s potential side effects to healthcare providers. As a result of the settlement, Eli Lilly agreed to change its marketing strategies and to cease promotion of its "off-label" uses. Off-label uses are those not approved by the FDA when it approves the sale and use of a particular drug. Physicians are allowed to prescribe drugs for off-label uses, but federal law prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from marketing products for off-label uses.

Zyprexa is the brand name for the prescription drug olanzapine. In 1996, Zyprexa was first marketed for use in adults with schizophrenia and belongs to a class of drugs commonly referred to as “atypical antipsychotics,” which are traditionally used to treat schizophrenia. The FDA has approved Zyprexa for the treatment of acute mixed or manic episodes of bipolar I disorder and for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Zyprexa carries serious side-effects, including weight gain, hyperglycemia and diabetes.

Beginning in 2001, Eli Lilly launched an aggressive marketing campaign called “Viva Zyprexa!” As part of the campaign, the company marketed Zyprexa for off-label uses including pediatric care, high-dosage treatment, treatment of symptoms rather than diagnosed conditions and treatment of elderly patients suffering from dementia.

Stipulations in the settlement agreement require Eli Lilly to:
• Refrain from making any false, misleading or deceptive claims regarding Zyprexa.
• Require its medical staff, rather than its marketing staff, to have ultimate responsibility for developing and approving content for all medical letters and references regarding Zyprexa.
• Require its medical staff to be responsible for the identification, selection, approval and dissemination of article reprints containing more than an incidental reference to off-label information regarding Zyprexa.
• Provide specific, accurate, objective and scientifically balanced responses to unsolicited requests for off-label information from a healthcare provider regarding Zyprexa.
• Contractually require continuing medical education providers to disclose Eli Lilly’s financial support of their programs and any financial relationship with faculty and speakers.
• Provide a list of healthcare provider promotional speakers and consultants who were paid more than $100 for promotional speaking and/or consulting by Eli Lilly.
• Only provide product samples of Zyprexa to healthcare providers whose clinical practice is consistent with the product’s current labeling.

Other states included in today’s settlement agreement include: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Read the Final Judgment Here.

Related Video

If you, or someone you know, has been injured, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

Ladder Safety: Videos, Photos and Links

The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, has a common sense page on their site devoted to Ladder Safety.  Click here to read the article wherein they discuss the following topics:

• Selection of the Appropriate Ladder
• Inspection of Ladder Prior to Use
• Proper Use of the Ladder

Click Lowell Steiger's Ladder Safety and Injuries Photo Album

Video, Choosing the Right Ladder: Ladder Safety by Work Safe BC, is a video designed to highlight the important safety procedures associated with ladder use on construction sites. The video uses classic B&W comedic film footage and computer graphic simulations to illustrate safe ladder techniques.

Here's another Ladder Safety Video -- graphic comedy styled video which really drives its point home

Ladder Safety Links

Ladder Safety eTools : OSHA (U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration)

PowerPoint Presentation Filled with Photos (University of Wisconsin): If you don't have PowerPoint, download a Free PowerPoint Viewer from Microsoft here

Ladder Safety: Safety Is Us, includes a section to Test Your Knowledge of Ladder Safety

ANSI/OSHA Ladder Requirements: Lab Safety Supply

Photos: Fotosearch provides 241 Safety and Ladder Stock Images and Photos

If you, or someone you know, has been injured, please call me immediately at (323) 852-1100 or send an e-mail to me at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

Aged Tires: A Driving Hazard

ABC News investigated the dangers of expired tires. A tire failure can result when the tread peels off of a tire. Tires can sit on the retailer’s shelf for years and still be sold as new. Research shows that even if a tire has never been driven a mile, they begin to dry out while they sit on the shelf. After 6 years of age, they can become dangerous.

When a car is traveling at highway speed and the tread comes off, the car violently swerves and weaves.

The tires may have plenty of tread depth but, if the tire is old, its dried out condition may be a hidden danger.

ABC has done an extensive undercover investigation. Watch the video here.

Related Links

Tire Aging, An In Depth Article (Tirerack.com)

Safety Research & Strategies (SRS; several articles relating to horrific dangers of aging tires)

Tire Manufacturers Ask Feds for (Tire) Age Standard (Consumeraffairs.com)

Aging Tire Lawsuits Gain Traction Nationwide (bnet)

Landmark Case Decision: Ford Motors Pays $29 Million in Aging Tire Disaster Case (The Auto Channel)

Tire Aging and Decoding The Age of Your Tire (Didier Law Firm)

*****************************************************************************************************************************

The Law Office of Lowell Steiger Represents Injured Victims

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Contact Attorney Lowell Steiger at          (323) 852-1100       

or via e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

www.steigerlaw.com

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Exploding Gas Can Injures Child: Wal-Mart May Be On The Hook

I read a fascinating story in the Torts Law Blog wherein Wal-Mart, based on their own training videos, knew or should have known of the potential danger of explosion in a particular gas can sold by them.  Ultimately, that gas can exploded when a 12 year old boy "poured gasoline from the container onto a pile of wet wood he had been trying to light, and the can exploded." 

From my perspective as a personal injury attorney who has handled many cases where injuries occur as a result of a faulty product (see, for example, The Case of the Exploding Wine Bottle), it is my opinion that manufacturers, as well as others in the chain of commerce (i.e., distributors, retailers), do not always fully explore the dangers of the products that they are hawking or, worse yet, do not fully disclose or warn of the dangers -- and all of this is to the injurious detriment of the unsuspecting consumer.

Please read the story below.

Wal-Mart Video Archive Helpful in Products Suit

Consumerist has a post (based on a WSJ piece) about the second life of thirty years of videos made for Wal-Mart.  The company that did the work evidently retained the rights (oops on Wal-Mart) and Wal-Mart declined to pay as much as the company asked.  Now the company is selling access and it's helped at least one plaintiffs' lawyer:

Plaintiffs attorney Diane M. Breneman stumbled across the videos while working on a lawsuit she filed in 2005, on behalf of a 12-year-old boy, against Wal-Mart and the manufacturer of a plastic gasoline can sold in its stores. Her client was injured when he poured gasoline from the container onto a pile of wet wood he had been trying to light, and the can exploded. The lawsuit alleges that the containers are unsafe because they don't contain a device that prevents flames from jumping up the spout and exploding.

Wal-Mart's lawyers have argued in court filings that the retailer couldn't have known that the product "presented any reasonable foreseeable risk...in the normal and expected use."

* * *

Ms. Breneman says Flagler Productions located videos of product presentations to Wal-Mart managers in which executives gave parody testimonials about the same brand of gasoline can. In an apparent coincidence, one manager joked about setting fire to wet wood: "I torched it. Boom! Fired right up." In a separate skit, an employee is seen driving a riding lawn mower into a display of empty gasoline cans. A Wal-Mart executive vice president observing the collision jokes: "A great gas can. It didn't explode." The tapes were made before the lawsuit was filed.

Ms. Breneman argues the footage provides evidence that the retailer could have foreseen the risk that customers would use the gas cans when starting fires. She says she plans to ask the Kansas City, Mo., federal court handling the case to allow the footage to be used as evidence. Wal-Mart's lawyer on the case didn't return calls seeking comment.

*****************************************************************************

The Law Office of Lowell Steiger Represents Injured Victims

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Contact Attorney Lowell Steiger at (323) 852-1100

or via e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

www.steigerlaw.com

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Eli Lilly settles Claims over Zyprexa

  IndyStar.Com, Indiana's Number 1 Local Media Site, reports the following:  INDIANAPOLIS -- Eli Lilly and Co. has settled another 900 personal-injury claims against its antipscyhotic drug Zyprexa, including five set to go to court next month, thus avoiding what would have been the first trial in the U.S. The Indianapolis drug maker confirmed the settlement Wednesday but declined to reveal the amount. With the latest agreements, Lilly has settled more than 25,000 claims, leaving about 1,100 unsettled. Many of the plaintiffs have claimed Lilly underplayed the drug's side effects, including weight gain and elevated blood sugar. Lilly has set aside $1.2 billion to pay claims. (Star report)

A google search on Zyprexa Litigation will refer you to a plethora of relevant links.

The Law Office of Lowell Steiger Represents Injured Victims

If you have suffered a Personal Injury, Call for a Free Consultation

Contact Attorney Lowell Steiger at (323) 852-1100

or via e-mail at lowell@steigerlaw.com

"Treated With the Respect That You Deserve"

www.steigerlaw.com