Products Liability

November 25, 2020

Contact a Product Liability Attorney in Massachusetts If You Are Hurt by a Defective Product During the Holidays

While the coronavirus pandemic will likely mean that everyone’s holiday season is at least a little bit different this year as compared to years past, there are some things that remain the same. Gifts will be exchanged. Special meals will be planned. Accidents, injuries, and illnesses will happen, possibly triggering a Cape Cod product liability lawsuit.

While not every product mishap will result in an injury or illness significant enough to trigger litigation, some, unfortunately, will. Fortunately, the law provides some protection against unreasonably safe products, provided that the consumer does his or her part to assert a claim in a timely fashion.

As in other types of personal injury litigation, the burden of proof in product injury cases is on the injured individual, so it is important that any evidence concerning the bad product be saved and preserved as possible evidence. Contacting an experienced product liability attorney is also a critical step in the process of receiving fair compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by a defective product.

June 26, 2020

Federal District Court in Massachusetts Is Called Upon to Determine Proper Forum for Cross-Claims in Products Liability Lawsuit

By John C. Manoog III

In a Cape Cod products liability case, there are likely to be several defendants. This is because several different parties in the chain of distribution – from the manufacturer to the wholesale distributor to the retailer – can potentially be liable to the plaintiff.

While it might seem simpler to name only a single defendant, this is rarely wise. Naming multiple defendants can help ensure that the plaintiff ultimately receives what he or she is due if there is a favorable judgment, even if one or more of the defendants proves to be insolvent or has limited resources for satisfying the plaintiff’s claim.

When there are several defendants, each of whom could potentially be held liable for a plaintiff’s personal injuries, it is not unusual for there to be cross-claims between the defendants as each attempts to limit its own monetary outlay to the plaintiff. Experienced product injury lawyers are well-acquainted with these tactics and understand that this “infighting” between the defendants cannot stand in the way of the injured party’s quest for justice.

January 29, 2020

Fire Risk From Faulty Products is an Ongoing Concern in Massachusetts and Across the Country

By John C. Manoog III

When a defective product causes injury or death to a consumer, the consumer (or his or her family) may be able to recover a settlement or judgment against the company that made the product. In some situations, the wholesaler and or seller may also be liable. There are several different legal theories upon which the consumer may rely on in a Cape Cod products liability lawsuit. These theories include (but are not necessarily limited to) design defect, manufacturing defect, strict liability, failure to warn, and breach of warranty. It is important that a person who has been hurt by a dangerous product get legal advice in a timely fashion, lest his or her claim become time-barred under state products liability laws.

Battery Banks Recalled

Most of us rely heavily on our cellphones these days, and a dead battery can disrupt not only our entertainment but also our ability to communicate and, when we are traveling, navigate. Portable power banks have become very popular, as we often need additional battery power to get us through a long day or a weekend trip. Unfortunately, power banks are not without risk. Recently, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a recall of certain 10,000 mAh power banks because the banks’ battery may overheat and cause a fire. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled products immediately.

Interestingly, these banks are not associated with a particular brand. Rather, they may contain a company logo on the front and or back of the product. This is because they were distributed as promotional items at meetings or other events rather than sold directly to the public. If you have suffered a fire or a burn caused by one of these banks or another lithium-ion battery product, you may be able to seek compensation via a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the device.

November 19, 2019

Massachusetts Tort Claims Act Protects Transportation Authority from Claim Arising from Discretionary Function

By John C. Manoog III

When a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit is filed against a defendant that is a governmental entity, there is often a defense that the entity is immune from suit based on the principles of governmental tort immunity. Of course, this defense is not always successful, as there are many situations in which the government can be sued, and a judgment can be entered. Resolution of the issue of whether or not immunity applies is typically handled by motion practice in the trial court, sometimes with interlocutory review by the appellate court if an appeal is filed by the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case (unreported), the plaintiff was a man who suffered a closed head injury and bilateral leg amputations after falling onto subway tracks (owned and maintained by the defendant transportation authority) and being struck by a train. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, averring that the defendant was negligent in failing to adequately staff the station with a safety inspector or a customer service agent (CSA) on the day the accident occurred.

The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing (among other things) that it was immune from liability for the plaintiff’s failure-to-staff claim, citing the discretionary function exception contained in Massachusetts General Laws ch. 258, § 10(b). The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its motion under the doctrine of present execution.

April 22, 2019

How to Learn More About Avoiding Injuries from Dangerous Products in Massachusetts and Elsewhere

By John C. Manoog III

If you are the parent of an infant or toddler, you probably already know that there are more baby products on the market than ever before. When choosing from a seeming multitude of options, how can you be assured that you are buying a product that is safe, rather than a potentially dangerous product that may eventually become the subject of a Massachusetts product liability lawsuit?

The unfortunate fact is that you cannot know, with absolute certainty, which items are safe, and which are not. However, there are some ways to research a particular product before making a purchase.

The federal government has a website that is somewhat of a “clearinghouse” for recalls and product advisories concerning several different products, including consumer products aimed at children and child safety seats.

March 13, 2019

Federal Appeals Court in Massachusetts Considers “Off Label” Product Injury Case Against Makers of Certain Antidepressants

By John C. Manoog III

Massachusetts product liability cases can cover a multitude of products – from the cars we drive to the toys that amuse our children to the medications that we take to try to be our healthiest selves.

Product injury lawsuits are not easy, and litigation can be lengthy. In many cases, there are a number of obstacles that must be overcome, if the plaintiff is to ultimately receive fair compensation for his or her injuries (or for a loved one’s death).

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiffs had filed individual lawsuits against the defendant pharmaceutical companies, asserting that the defendants had engaged in “off label” prescription drug marketing and fraud intended to push their antidepressant drugs on minors for whom the Federal Drug Administration had not approved usage. The plaintiffs’ actions were aggregated for pretrial proceedings by order of a multi-district litigation panel.

December 26, 2018

Recent Food Poisoning Scares Could Affect Massachusetts Residents’ New Year’s Resolutions

By John C. Manoog III

As the holiday season winds down, many Massachusetts residents may be planning to begin the new year with the resolution of healthier eating – fewer starchy processed foods and more fresh fruits and vegetables. Usually, this would be a good plan.

Unfortunately, however, there have been several food contamination scares recently that could leave one wondering whether a new diet would indeed be best choice or whether eating “healthier” might end in a Massachusetts food poisoning lawsuit.

The Romaine Lettuce Recall

The United States Food & Drug Administration oversees the safety of the nation’s food supply. Often, this comes in the form of the recall of batch of foods (such as ground beef) processed within a few days time. With the recent romaine lettuce situation, however, the warning (first issued in late November) was much broader. Consumers were urged not eat any romaine lettuce and to throw out any such food product until more information was obtained by the FDA.

October 3, 2018

Federal Court Dismisses Product Liability Claim But Allows Massachusetts Man to “Try and Re-Plead” Two Counts

By John C. Manoog III

A Cape Code product liability lawsuit can arise from many different types of products, including prescription medications. Drug-based product liability cases can involve products that were defectively designed or manufactured, but more often they may claim that the manufacturer failed to warn consumers of possible complications from usage of the medication.

Of course, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant is liable for his or her injuries, and this can be a challenge in many cases. If the plaintiff’s complaint does not alleged sufficient facts to support a viable cause of action against the defendant, the trial court may dismiss the plaintiff’s case.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently ruled upon by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the plaintiff was a man who claimed that he suffered serious side effects from a prescription medication and that the defendants, a drug manufacturer and a research and development company, failed to warn him of these possible issues. The drug in question was Risperdal, which is an anti-psychotic drug. The plaintiff, who is an inmate at a correctional institution in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, was purportedly prescribed the drug due to a diagnosis of a personality disorder. According to the plaintiff, the drug caused him to gain weight, have tremors, and develop gynecomastia (increased breast tissue).

September 21, 2018

Massachusetts Consumers May Be Affected by National Product Recalls

By John C. Manoog III

A Massachusetts product liability lawsuit can arise from a wide array of defective products. Sometimes, these products are the subject of a recall by the manufacturer or a governmental entity, but often they are not.

Nevertheless, it is wise to stay abreast of the latest recalls in order to avoid possible safety issues concerning consumer products, motor vehicles, foods, or other items.

Vehicle Recalls Recently Issues

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration maintains a website that lists all of the latest recalls for cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, vans, and the like. You can search for recalls specific to your automobile if you have the vehicle identification number (VIN). Recent recalls include certain Chevrolet Silverados and Tahoes, which may develop a loose or inoperative brake pedal. Because this could result in a crash, vehicle owners should contact General Motors for information on having a repair made.

March 27, 2018

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Paralyzed Woman’s Claim for Relief from Judgment Due to Alleged Fraud by Vehicle Manufacturer in Prior Product Liability Lawsuit

By John C. Manoog III

In personal injury and wrongful death cases, there are sometimes multiple theories of liability. In a Cape Cod product liability case, for instance, the plaintiff may allege that the defendant manufacturer was negligent in the design of an unreasonably dangerous product and that the defendant should be held accountable for its failure to warn the consumer of the dangerous propensity of the product in question. These theories are not necessarily inconsistent.

Sometimes, however, a plaintiff may have to decide between legal theories that could be considered inconsistent. A recent case explored the complications that can arise in such situations.

Facts of the Case