Product liability cases can be among the toughest cases to pursue. One case handled by PAFSS involved a defective guard which caused the saw blade to cut into the palm of our client's hand and amputate one of his fingers. The insurance company retained a law firm that knew how to defend these cases. They took video depositions of our client and tried to blame the client for how he used the saw. The defect was the type of hinge used on the saw referred to as a "living hinge" which is a plastic hinge. When using equipment as potentially dangerous as a table saw with devastating cutting power, attorney Richard Apat of the firm argued that this was an inadequate style hinge to use on the guard to the blade, which ultimately failed causing the injuries. Had the manufacturer spent a little more money on a metal hinge, it would not have failed and the injury would not have occurred. These kinds of examples can be found in many products and only a thorough investigation can uncover if a particular product is defective. PAFSS will spend the necessary time and money to investigate and pursue these product cases if the product is in fact defective.
In a case involving a powerful drain cleaner, PAFSS took on not only the manufacturer of the product but an entire trade association that was organized by the various manufacturers and distributors of the product. The Association was formed for the sole purpose of keeping the product on the market and preventing the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from taking the product off the market (see video by reporter Rosanne Scotto hyperlink).
The product had been used in a bathtub but never fully cleared through the drain. The next time a bath was taken by the children, the youngest child ingested the water that contained some of the product causing severe burns to his stomach and esophagus requiring extensive hospital stays, dilatation of the esophagus and stomach and permanently affected the child's ability to digest food.
A number of similar drain cleaner cases have been brought which had been dismissed on summary judgment. One reason some of these cases were dismissed is because the manufacturer argued that they complied with the Federal Hazardous Substances Act in the way they labeled the product as a dangerous product. Attorney Richard Apat was able to prove that the labeling was inadequate as the labeling was not acid resistant and on many of the bottles actually began to come off. Additionally, he was able to show that sulfuric acid burns were much worse than the types of burns received from other more common drain cleaners such as Drano and lye based drain cleaners. After surviving motions to dismiss as well as an appeal, the case was slated for trial. At trial the manufacturer came up with $950,000 of their $1 million policy of available insurance, and through the use of a structured settlement, was able to obtain a payout for their client during the course of his life which provides for guaranteed payments in excess of $4.1 million.
When you take on a manufacturer and argue that a product which has provided revenues for the company is simply no good, they often fight hard to defend the case and the reputation of the product. This is why you must have attorneys willing to prosecute the case, spend the money and time to bring the case to trial.
