Currently Browsing: Product Liability

Learning that Strict Liability is a Thing

Recently, I was reading about injuries caused by defective products and was surprised to learn about the concept of strict liability. So I know that for many personal injury cases, the victim of the accident can seek compensation from the person that caused the accident.

My understanding thus far hinged on the knowledge that the person being sued had in some way, through negligence or carelessness, caused the accident. Because that person was careless and not doing or accounting for something they should have been accounting for, it left someone else worse off. In this way, the conduct of the defendant matters a lot in establishing responsibility.

In the case of strict liability, the conduct of the defendant does not matter. They could have done everything that they needed to in order to clear the product to be sold, but if it poses an inherent threat to consumers, strict liability dictates that they are ultimately responsible for those injuries.

If a company makes housewares and they don’t test their products properly, when the products later harm the consumer, the company is on the hook for the injury. According to the site of William J. Luse, Myrtle Beach Personal injury lawyer, accident victims shouldn’t be left to cover their expenses if their accident was caused due to no fault of their own. Simple enough.

However, strict liability takes this concept even further, mentioning that even if the company did everything in their power to ensure the product’s safety, the company can still be held legally accountable if a consumer is injured while using their product.

Apparently, strict liability became a legal option in order to help victims who were having trouble winning their cases. Victims who were clearly injured for using the product correctly were not able to achieve favorable legal results because proving that the manufacturer behaved a certain way was too difficult.

In order to successfully win a strict liability case, the victim and their lawyer must be able to prove that the condition of the product was unsafe as sold, the manufacturer did not intend for any changes to be made to the product before it reached the consumer, and the victim sustained physical or property damage as a result of using the product.

The blame for product liability cases can fall on multiple parties which include the product manufacturer, the distributor, or the retailers. A lawyer is useful in determining if one or a couple of these parties can be held responsible for the harm caused by the product. In the chain of production and distribution, there are plenty of things that can go awry so having some perspective from a seasoned lawyer is typically helpful in making a useful determination.

When Truck Defects and Malfunction Lead to Accidents

Vehicular accidents remain a pressing issue all over the United States. While the number of motor vehicle crashes has declined in the recent years, the occurrence of such accidents continues to have grave impact on the lives of millions and millions of Americans.

Devastating wrecks are known to result in severe injuries and tragic fatalities. This is especially applicable to accidents where large trucks such as 18-wheelers and big rigs are involved. These vehicles overpower most of the others in the road by sheer size and weight. Any collision involving a large truck and a smaller vehicle can be expected to lead to some very dangerous outcomes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety or IIHS broke down the total 3,062 fatalities caused by large truck accidents accordingly: 2,410 of the victims were riding passenger vehicles, 586 were truck operators, and 557 of the victims were bicyclists, motorcyclists, or pedestrians.

There are many reasons as to truck accidents happen. Among the contributing factors are malfunctioning and defective parts. Large trucks make use of a combination of mechanical and computer systems to operate. Issues that occur in any of these two systems can cause very serious trouble for the operator and the other motorists sharing the road. Accidents can also happen when these large vehicles lack the required amount of upkeep to ensure that all the parts and systems are in order.

When it comes to accidents caused by truck defects and malfunction, it is the trucking companies that are held most accountable for any safety issue. It is, after all, understood that these companies and their operators are doing what they can to meet safety policies and regulations imposed by the government. Manufacturers of the malfunctioning or defective parts responsible can also be held equally liable. As a result, victims of large truck accidents should not hesitate to pursue legal action to receive just compensation.

Actonel – A Harmful Osteoporosis Drug

A pharmaceutical drug, otherwise called medicinal product, medicine or medication, is manufactured for purposes of medical diagnoses, prevention, treatment or cure of diseases. Three well-known FDA-approved medicines, under the class known as Bisphosphonate, are Fosamax, Actonel and Boniva – all for prevention and treatment of (post-menopausal) osteoporosis, a medical condition wherein bones turn fragile and brittle due to loss of tissue, an occurrence that usually results from deficiency in vitamin D, calcium or hormonal changes.

Women suffering from post-menopausal osteoporosis are prescribed with one of the three medicines mentioned to help decrease the fracture of bones in their body. In a test conducted, called the Fosamax Actonel Comparison Trial (FACT) trial, Fosamax edged Actonel in the manifestation of decrease in bone loss, seen through a substantial decrease in bone turnover and increases in mineralization.

Another study was conducted, though, which compared the performance and effectivity of the three drugs. The study showed that, while Boniva and Fosamax manifested desired results (that is, decrease of bone fractures) after two years of use, Actonel proved effective only after a year of intake, enabling researchers to confidently say that Actonel works much faster.

The result of this last study has only reassured University of Cincinnati Bone Health and Osteoporosis Center director Nelson B. Watts, MD and Women’s Health Center at The Cleveland Clinic director Holly Thacker, MD, in their decision of to prescribe Actonel over any other drug for treatment of osteoporosis.

In January of 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a health alert, stating the possible risk associated with the use of bisphosphonates. These risks included serious bone, muscle and/or joint pains which may incapacitate a patient. Thus, use of any of the bisphosphonate drugs necessitated both physician and patient to fully understand the benefits and possible side-effects of the drugs.

Actonel, in particular, despite its benefits, is known to cause certain serious side-effects, such as femur fractures, rashes, skin reactions, hypersensitivity and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Actonel (with the generic name Risedronate sodium) was approved for distribution on March 27, 1998; it is manufactured by Procter & Gamble.

One side-effect caused by Actonel, which has resulted to lawsuits is Femur Fracture.