Articles Posted in Product Liability

A labeling error in the packaging of Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-BA006A blood glucose test strips may cause confusion about which meter models the strips are designed to be used with. As shown in the picture below the manufacturer omitted to write the name of the meter model (BMB-BA006A) with which the strips have to be used.

The confusing labelling may lead customers to believe they can use these test strips with the Advocate Redi-Code blood glucose meters, model numbers TD-3223E, TD-4223E, TD-4223F, TD-4276 manufactured by Taidoc Technology Corp which could result in incorrect glucose results.

Incorrect glucose results may lead customers to choose inappropriate treatment which could ultimately result in serious personal injury or death.

Sunlamp products and UV lamps pose a risk of skin cancer especially among young people below 18 years old and people with a history of skin cancer in their family. To address this risk the FDA recently reclassified all sunlamp products from low risk to moderate risk. Additionally, the FDA now requires that sunlamp products carry a visible black-box warning on the device that explicitly states that the sunlamp product should not be used on persons under the age of 18 years. Some marketing materials also have to include specific warnings.

Read the FDA press release

Picture: Courtesy of Wikipedia

Yesterday General Motors announced four additional recalls to address the following safety issues:

• A defective front safety lap belt in 1,339,355 Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia medium crossovers from the 2009-2014 model years and Saturn Outlooks from 2009-201
• A defective shift cable in 1,074,932 of the previous generation 4-speed automatic transmission Chevrolet Malibu from the 2004-2008 model years and Pontiac G6 from the 2005-2008 model years

The defective ignition switch in some GM cars was a widely known issue among GM engineers and executives in 2012 and long before that General Motors had received multiple warning about the defect said David Friedman, the acting administrator of the National Traffic Safety Administration of the Transportation Department Today in a joint news conference with Transportation Secretary Anthony Fox. As part of the settlement GM agreed to pay a record $35 million civil penalty and to take part in unprecedented oversight requirements.

Read more in the New York Time

Read the press release from the US Department of Transportation

In a previous product liability blog we discussed the unusual use of the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine (Park doctrine) by the CPSC in the Buckyballs recall. Last Monday The CPSC announced that they had reached a settlement agreement with Craig Zucker from Brooklyn, NY, to recall the small Buckyballs and Buckycubes. The settlement calls for Craig Zucker to fund a Recall Trust that will be controlled by the CPSC. The Recall Trust will be used to provide a refund to consumers who return the magnetic sets.

Buckyballs are made of rare-earth magnets. They are described as toys for adults but they pose a swallowing hazard for children and teens. If a child swallows more than one magnet, the powerful balls can pull together inside his or her digestive system, potentially causing internal injuries that the CPSC has described as similar to “a gun shot wound to the gut with no sign of entry or exit.”

Read more in the Huffington Post

The GM restructuring plan approved by Judge Gerber in New York in 2009 protects the automaker from product liability lawsuits related to incidents that happened before July 10th 2009, the date when the restructuring agreement went into effect.

Yesterday GM filed a motion with the Federal Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York asking Judge Robert Gerber (picture), the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge from the Southern District of New York, who presided over the General Motors bankruptcy of June 2009, to explicitly enforce this plan by dismissing 54 cases.

The move may save GM a lot of money but it also carries some risks. A coalition of 8 class-action plaintiffs countered with a lawsuit in the same court seeking to void that part of the restructuring agreement and accusing General Motors of committing bankruptcy fraud by not disclosing potential liabilities from the faulty switch.