Nobody wants to think about toxic substances that may exist in the drinking water in Encinitas or elsewhere in Southern California. However, companies have disposed of toxic and otherwise harmful substances in ways that result in serious and fatal harms to consumers in California and throughout the country, giving rise to a category of personal injury lawsuits known as toxic tort claims. Toxic tort injuries in a small town in Southern California made national news back in 1996, yet as a recent article in Grist highlights, those toxic substances continue to have relevance.

Toxic Torts Legislation in Hinkley, California

Anyone who has seen the film Erin Brockovich (2000) probably remembers the name Hinkley, a town in Southern California made famous in 1996 when, as the article explains, “a group of residents famously won a massive direct-action arbitration against Pacific Gas and Electric.” The case involved allegations against Pacific Gas and Electric, which ultimately was found responsible for “dumping hexavalent chromium (aka chromium-6), a carcinogen used to suppress rust formation at the Hinkley gas compressor station, into an unlined pond in the ‘50s and ‘60s.” By the 1990s, the chromium-6 had seeped into the groundwater in Hinkley, and many people suffered serious injuries.

Yet the dumping of toxic waste continues to impact residents. While many people moved away from Hinkley, some people stayed. The groundwater remains contaminated, and experts have suggested that a complete cleanup could take as long as 50 years. Property owners cannot find insurers, and residents of the town remain at risk of toxins in the groundwater. While those who decided to remain in Hinkley have taken important steps to hold Pacific Gas and Electric accountable and to ensure that remediation does occur, there is no clarity as to when (and whether) the full cleanup will be completed.

Public Utilities Engage in Dangerous Behaviors Beyond Toxic Torts

Utility companies and other energy companies can be responsible for severe toxic tort injuries that result from harmful substances being dumped into the water and ground in California. At the same time, it is important to remember that utility companies can also engage in other dangerous behaviors beyond those associated with toxic tort claims that can put California residents at risk of serious personal injury.

For example, according to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, the Southern California Gas Co. recently was fined for failing to test a section of its pipeline that was damaged in an explosion that occurred in January 2017. Southern California Gas Co. is the largest natural-gas operator in the state of California (and indeed in the country). As such, it supplies natural gas to thousands of Californians. However, California state regulators also allege that the company has been “putting its financial bottom line ahead of public safety by refusing to fully investigate [the] 2017 explosion.” The California Public Utilities Commission fined the utility company $3.3 million, citing its practices as “irresponsible to the public safety and unacceptable.”

Contact an Encinitas Toxic Torts Lawyer

If you have questions about toxic torts or filing a toxic torts claim in Southern California, you should speak with an Encinitas toxic torts attorney about your case. Contact the Walton Law Firm for more information about how we assist clients in personal injury cases.

See Related Blog Posts: Brain Injury Research Gets a Boost New Study Highlights Open Water Drowning Dangers

Patients in Vista and elsewhere in Southern California who have suffered injuries as a result of defective medical devices may have been the victims of an outdated medical device approval process. According to a recent article from Global Data Healthcare, patients across the U.S. received medical devices that ended up being dangerous for use and may not have been assessed as well as they could have been by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Now, in response to a report on tens of thousands of deaths caused by dangerous medical devices, the FDA has plans to change the way it approves medical devices for patient use.

Investigative Report Exposes Tens of Thousands of Medical Device-Related Fatalities

Many Americans have heard about large-scale medical device recalls and class action lawsuits related to them. For example, both knee replacements and hip replacements made national news in recent years, as have transvaginal mesh lawsuits. While these defective medical devices certainly caused patient injuries, it is important to understand that there are a wide variety of medical devices that can pose harm to patients—not just those that are commonly in the news.

A recent report from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) indicated that in the last 10 years alone, more than 80,000 patients have died as a result of receiving defective or hazardous medical devices. Some of the most dangerous devices listed in the report include defective heart valves, insulin pumps, and breast implants.

FDA Responds to Investigative Report and News of Patient Deaths

How did more than 80,000 people receive defective medical devices? Did the FDA really approve all of these devices for patient use? In large part, the answer to the second question is yes. Currently, and for quite some time, the FDA has approved a high percentage of both low-risk and moderate-risk devices that come up for approval through the 510(k) program. In 2017, the FDA approved more than 80% of the devices in this category. Of those devices that were approved, about 20% “were based on predicate devices that are over 10 years old.”

The FDA now plans to change the approval process through the 510(k) program, emphasizing attention to “modern technology and safety practices.” In addition, the article underscores how the FDA “has additional plans to more actively engage safety monitoring through the development of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST).” Moreover, the FDA has indicated that it has plans to gather data on patients and medical device injuries, and to do a better job of tracking safety issues related to medical devices that have been received by patients across the country.

Seek Advice from a Vista Product Liability Lawyer

Medical devices can cause serious and fatal injuries to patients in California and throughout the country. While patients should be able to rely on FDA approval processes to ensure that they are not receiving defective devices, the recent ICIJ report makes clear that the FDA needs to improve its processes for approving medical devices.

In the meantime, if you or someone you love suffered injuries as a result of a dangerous medical device, you should speak with a Vista product liability lawyer about filing a claim for compensation. Contact the Walton Law Firm to speak with a personal injury attorney today.

See Related Blog Posts: Ford Recall Could Affect San Clemente Automobile Owners Recalled Instant Pots Could Cause Burn Injuries in Rancho Bernardo

Whether you live in Encinitas or another part of San Diego County, you should know about a bill that has been introduced in California to “prohibit settlement agreements that keep secret information about dangerous products and environmental hazards,” according to a recent article in the Sacramento Bee. The bill is not the first of its kind. To be sure, a number of other states have enacted similar laws to help ensure that consumers can have important information about hazardous products that could cause personal injuries. We want to provide some more information about the bill, and to give you an idea of how it could impact personal injury lawsuits in Southern California concerning product defects.

Confidential Settlements and Defective Products in California

Assemblyman Mark Stone introduced Assembly Bill 889, which is designed to prevent lawsuit settlements that are conditioned on information about defective products that could pose “a danger to public health and safety” being kept confidential. Currently, when consumers file lawsuits against manufacturers after being injured by a product with a safety defect, for example, the manufacturer can settle the lawsuit and require the consumer to agree to confidentiality. Often, such confidentiality is to ensure that a protective order issued by the court that “prevent[s] plaintiffs from disclosing information that they have learned and insist, as a condition of settling a lawsuit, that the parties remain silent about the matter.”

Such a settlement, in effect, can prevent the public from obtaining information about a potentially harmful product. In addition, such settlements may prevent regulators from learning about possible defects that could prompt a safety recall. As the article contends, “such secrecy leads to deaths and serious injuries as the public and regulators are kept in the dark about unsafe products and toxic conditions.” If Assembly Bill 889 passes, it would prevent plaintiffs from entering into settlement agreements that would prevent this kind of information from staying secret.

How Settlements can Result in Additional Consumer Injuries

Why do these kinds of settlement agreements arise? In many instances, manufacturers (or other associated with a defective product) may benefit more by settling a claim and keeping information out of the public realm as opposed to allowing the lawsuit to move forward. The article explains that businesses often “fear that revelations will cause a loss of sales and harm their reputation.”

When protective orders prevent plaintiffs from providing information about a potentially defective product, these hazardous consumer items can stay on the market for a longer period of time. There are real-world examples of this happening. For example, a tire recall occurred in 2000 due to a defect that resulted in the deaths of more than 150 people. When the recall occurred—after these deaths had been reported—it became clear that “more than 200 cases had been secretly settled in the decade prior to the recall.”

If the bill passes, it could provide consumers with more information that could prevent personal injuries. At the same time, it could change the way that product liability lawsuits lead to settlements (and what those settlements can look like).

Contact an Escondido Personal Injury Lawyer

To learn more about product liability lawsuits and dangerous product defects, you should reach out to an Escondido product defect lawyer. Contact the Emerson Law Firm for more information.

See Related Blog Posts: Do Millennials Pay Attention to Product Recalls and Injury Risks? New Takata Air Bag Safety Risk and Recall in San Diego

(image courtesy of Imthaz Ahamed)

If you live in Rancho Bernardo and regularly commute within the San Diego area, you probably know that self-driving cars have become a frequent topic of conversation and concern in California. Many Southern California residents are not yet ready to share the road with autonomous vehicles, while others in the industry are pushing for the expansion of the self-driving car market. On the one hand, those in favor of self-driving cars argue, for instance, that these vehicles “will help create a safer, cleaner, and more mobile society,” according to a recent article in Science Magazine. On the other hand, some consumer safety advocates contend that the costs associated with autonomous vehicles may not outweigh the safety benefits, according to a recent report in USA Today.

Where does California law stand on autonomous vehicles and auto accidents? How should Rancho Bernardo residents assess the risks and benefits of self-driving cars?

Liability and Manufacturer Specifications

California laws have been more willing than those in many other states to accommodate self-driving vehicles. However, a recent decision from the California DMV suggests that it may have some questions about autonomous vehicles and liability. More specifically, according to an article in Engadget.com, “the state’s DMV has eliminated a planned rule . . . that would have let companies avoid liability for an autonomous vehicle crash if the machine hadn’t been maintained to manufacturer specs.” To put that another way, the rule would have allowed the vehicle manufacturer to be free of liability, regardless of the cause of the crash, if the vehicle owner had not properly maintained the car. General Motors (GM) suggested the rule initially.

The California DMV opened the rule for comments, and ultimately decided against implementing the rule. As such, autonomous vehicle manufacturers can still bear at least some of the liability in a crash caused by, for instance, an error in the vehicle’s code even if the car’s owner did not have it maintained to manufacturer specs.

Do Self-Driving Car Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

As more autonomous vehicles are designed and manufactured, consumer advocates in California and across the country are also asking whether the safety benefits actually outweigh the risks. According to the USA Today report, self-driving cars will have to make “choices” when forced into “no-win” accident situations. In other words, the vehicle may have to decide, in effect, who lives and who dies when a traffic collision is unavoidable.

More specifically, self-driving cars are programmed to strike “the smaller thing” when crashing into something is unavoidable—such as another vehicle or a tree. However, as the report emphasizes, “what if the smaller thing is a child?” According to a study conducted by Asim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology at University of California, Irvine, most drivers believe that autonomous vehicles should behave in a way that leaves the fewest number of people hurt or killed in the event of a crash, but at the same time, there are ethical questions that could limit the reach of the self-driving car market.

Contact a Rancho Bernardo Car Accident Attorney

If you or someone you love sustained injuries in a motor vehicle crash, you should discuss your case with a car accident lawyer in Rancho Bernardo. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to learn more about how we can assist you.

See Related Blog Posts: Drugged Driving Accidents in Encinitas Distracted Walking in Valley Center

(image courtesy of Nabeel Syed)

If your teenager plays contact sports or engages in other activities in San Clemente that increases his or her risk of a concussion, is it better to avoid these sports altogether? Do the benefits of team sports and individual recreational activities outweigh the potential harms associated with a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI)? According to a recent report from NPR, teens may be sustaining concussions at a higher rate than most parents would like to believe. The report cites a research letter that was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA, which indicates that “approximately 20 percent of teens . . . have been diagnosed with at least one concussion.”

What is causing teen concussions at such a high rate? What steps can parents take to reduce the risk of a TBI altogether, and to ensure that their child heals properly after sustaining a head trauma?

High School Students Surveyed About History of Head Injuries

The recent research letter in JAMA examined questionnaire responses from Monitoring the Future (MTF), an annual study run by the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. It surveys high school students from states across the country “about their behaviors and attitudes.” In total, the authors of the letter in JAMA looked at approximately 13,000 questionnaire responses in crafting their letter.

One of those authors, Philip Veliz, asked that the survey pose a new question to students completing the survey for the 2016 year: Have you ever had a concussion? As Veliz explains, simply knowing the rate of concussion among teenagers can help us to understand “prevalence rates and factors that correlate with the injury.” The MTF survey gathered information from teens in a relatively broad age range, from grades eight through twelve (in other words, kid aged 13 through 18). About 50% of the students were female, 47% were white, 19% were Hispanic, and 13% were Black.

Teens Who Play Contact Sports Have High Rates of Concussion

When teens sustain head injuries while playing contact sports, relatively few seek treatment in an emergency department. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that only about 4-5% of teens who suffer head injuries go to an emergency room. Some visit their family doctors instead, and some simply do not seek treatment at all. Previous surveys have reported that around 25% of all adults have sustained at least one concussion in their lifetimes. Based on the results of the current survey, it looks as though a large number of those concussions occur during the young adults years.

In most cases of teen concussions, the head injuries occurred during contact sports. The authors of the research letter noted higher rates of concussions among older white male teens, but more generally, they tended to see concussion rates spike for those who played the following sports:

• Football;
• Ice hockey; and
• Wrestling.

After a teen sustains a concussion, it is extremely important to seek medical attention and to follow a physician’s instructions for proper healing. Can parents also prevent concussions? The results of the survey suggest that contact sports simply may not be safe for teens, especially when so many concussions occur. At the same time, the survey does rely on students’ responses (as opposed to official medical documents). As such, the actual rate of concussion could be lower or even higher, depending upon students who misidentified injuries as well as students who sustained concussions but did not seek medical treatment.

Contact a San Clemente Brain Injury Lawyer

If your teen sustained a serious head trauma, an experienced San Clemente brain injury attorney can assist you. Contact the Walton Law Firm today.

See Related Blog Posts: New Study Addresses High School Football and Traumatic Brain Injury Can a New Protein Help Brain Injury Victims in Oceanside?

(image courtesy of Joao Victor Xavier)

Many Valley Center residents have heard about the risks of distracted driving. Indeed, as a report from ABC News 10 discusses, on January 1, 2017 additional cell phone laws took effect that prevent California drivers from holding a phone or doing anything more than making a single tap or a single swipe. While drivers are still permitted to use cell phones as GPS devices, provided that they are mounted somewhere in the vehicle, the change to the law aims to prevent distracted driving accidents. What about distracted walking? While the term might sound like an odd one, it is becoming a relatively serious problem in California and throughout major urban areas in the country.

According to a recent report from KEYT News 3, a local official is proposing a change to the law. In short, in order to improve public safety, San Mateo County Supervisor David Canepa is hoping to institute a distracted walking law that “would make it illegal to use the crosswalk while using your cell phone.” Is such a law likely to pass? Is it necessary to prevent pedestrian accidents?

Pedestrian Accidents on the Rise Due to Smartphone Use

According to the report, Canepa argues that the rising rates of distracted walking require a law to prohibit this behavior in certain places. Namely, looking at a smartphone to send a text or to surf the internet while crossing the street in a crosswalk can lead to a deadly collision. While automobiles are supposed to stop for anyone on foot who is crossing the street, this does not always happen. To be clear, although the automobile driver may be at fault for failing to come to a stop at a crosswalk, pedestrians should also think about their own safety and to put down the phone while crossing from one side of the street to another.

Canepa indicates that about 25% of car collisions in California right now involve pedestrians, and this number is on the rise. A likely explanation for this rise in this rate of distracted walking accidents is smartphones. More people are paying attention to the screens instead of to their surroundings. Canepa’s proposed law would allow police officers to cite any pedestrians who are looking down at smartphones while they are within a crosswalk. The idea is that the number of pedestrian accidents and fatalities would decline.

What Can You do to Prevent These Accidents?

Just how big of a problem is distracted walking? An article in Safety.com notes that about 5,000 pedestrians sustain fatal injuries each year, while 76,000 more suffer from serious nonfatal injuries. Experts are quite certain that distracted walking is at least part of the problem, and California would not be the first state to ban distracted walking in some capacity. New Jersey has already instituted a ban on texting while walking.

The article discusses a 2012 study conducted by researchers at SUNY-Stony Brook, which “found that those who texted while walking were 60 percent more likely to veer off line than non-texters.” The researchers behind the study as well as other in the film describe this as “inattentive blindness.” While use of the term “blindness” might seem like an exaggeration, the Stony Brook researchers highlighted how surprised they were to “find that talking and texting on a cell phone [was] so disruptive to one’s gait and memory recall of [a] target location.”

To prevent these accidents, it is important to pay attention while walking and especially while in a crosswalk. If you were injured in an accident caused by a distracted walker, you should speak with a Valley Center accident lawyer as soon as you can. Contact the Walton Law Firm for more information.

See Related Blog Posts: Improving Encinitas Pedestrian Safety on El Camino Real Vista Road Rage Accidents and Aggressive Driving

(image courtesy of Bethany Legg)

Is high school football in San Marcos really as dangerous as scientists and physicians have been suggesting? Does playing high school football increase young athletes’ risk for sports-related concussions and more serious traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), in addition to placing them in danger of developing the degenerative brain condition known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)? Most physicians would say, in general, yes. However, according to a new study published in JAMA Neurology, not all high school football players appear to have sustained long-term damage from playing the sport in their youth. High school football players in the 1950s did not, on the whole, show signs of cognitive impairment.

This study appears to call into question some of the recent research on TBIs and high school football. What are the key takeaways from this study, and should this research change the way we manage the risk of brain injuries in contact sports?

Study Explores Link Between Youth Sports-Related Concussions and Long-Term Cognitive Health

One of the primary reasons for the study, according to its authors, is that we simply do not have enough information about how sports-related concussions sustained by youth athletes affects their long-term cognitive and mental health. The authors emphasize that most of the reports we have seen on CTE in retired professional football players come from posthumous examinations of those players’ donated brains, and such investigations may be “affected by referral bias.” It is particularly difficult, then, to make assessments concerning the long-term brain health of high school football players, especially when they do not continue playing the sport in college or at the professional level.

The researchers in this study emphasize that “there has been limited work examining the association of playing high school football with cognitive impairment and depression later in life.” Some studies have taken place, but there have been no randomized clinical trials, and research in general has had some conflicting outcomes.

In order to provide a more complete assessment of the TBI risks of high school football, the researchers proposed a “matched observational study.” In the study, they took a random sampling of thousands of Wisconsin high school graduates from 1957, and then looked specifically at graduates who had played football. They controlled for issues such as “adolescent IQ, family background, and educational level.” The ultimate goal was to “estimate the association of playing high school football with cognitive impairment and depression at 65 years of age.”

No Statistically Significant Link Between High School Football and Cognitive Impairment

The results of the study are surprising given recent work on football and head trauma. In assessing the cases of 3,904 individual men who played high school football, the researchers determined that “there was no statistically significant harmful association of playing football with a reduced composite cognition score.” The study also reported that, after adjusting for control factors, “playing football did not have a significant adverse association with . . . the likelihood of heavy alcohol use at 65 years of age” or with other outcomes such as depression, anger, anxiety, or hostility.

What can we take away from the study? Generally speaking, more research needs to be done on brain injury risks and high school football. In the meantime, if your child suffered a concussion or a serious TBI while playing high school sports, a San Marcos brain injury lawyer can discuss your options with you. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to learn more about filing a brain injury claim.

See Related Blog Posts: Can a New Protein Help Brain Injury Victims in Oceanside? Proposed Brain Injury Legislation Could Help San Marcos Residents

(Photo by João Victor Xavier)

Could a multi-vehicle accident caused by road rage and aggressive driving happen in Vista, California? According to a recent report from ABC News, a motorcyclist’s road rage and aggressive driving caused a serious crash around Santa Clarita. The collision involved a sedan and a pickup truck, and that pickup truck overturned as a result of the crash. The motorcyclist—who was caught on film by other drivers, fled the scene of the car accident. The incident should alerts drivers throughout Southern California to the serious risks associated with road rage and other forms of aggressive driving.

Details of the Road Rage Accident

According to report, the accident happened at approximately 5:45 a.m. on a recent weekday morning. While witnesses could not say precisely what started the altercation, those heading southbound on State Road 14 managed to film a motorcyclist who “appears to try to kick the sedan” the approaches on his right. As a result of the motorcyclist’s behavior, the “sedan veers to the left and briefly collides with the motorcyclist before losing control and crashing into the highway divider wall.”

Yet these were not the only vehicles involved in the crash. “The momentum from the crash sent the sedan toward the middle lane of the highway, where it collided with a white Cadillac pickup truck, causing the truck to overturn.” Reports indicate that the truck driver sustained moderate injuries and was taken to a nearby hospital to be treated. Following the collision, the motorcyclist continued driving southbound without stopping. The crash remains under investigation with the California Highway Patrol.

Majority of Drivers Get Angry on the Road, AAA Study Says

Could an accident like the one discussed above happen in Vista or in other parts of Southern California? According to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, road rage is much more common than you might think. Indeed, as the authors of that study note, “nearly 80 percent of drivers expressed significant anger, aggression, or road rage behind the wheel at least once in the past year,” and about eight million drivers admit to engaging in “extreme examples of road rage.” What is extreme road rage? The study cites behaviors such as “purposefully ramming another vehicle or getting out of the car to confront another driver.”

The following figures help to show the severity of road rage and risks of a serious crash:

• 51% of drivers admit to purposefully tailgating;
• 47% have yelled at another driver;
• 45% of drivers honk to show annoyance or anger;
• 33% percent of drivers admit to making angry gestures;
• 24% have tried to block another vehicle from changing lanes;
• 12% of drivers admit to cutting off another vehicle on purpose;
• 4%, or 7.6 million drivers, admit to getting out of their own vehicle to confront another driver; and
• 3% of drivers, or 5.7 million people, admit to bumping or ramming another vehicle on purpose.

Almost two out of three Americans surveyed believe that aggressive driving has become a more serious problem, and about 90% of people surveyed think that aggressive driving poses a serious safety risk. Yet, as you can see, many drivers continue to engage in these risky behaviors.

Contact a Vista Car Accident Lawyer

Were you injured in a motor vehicle collision caused by an aggressive driver? An experienced Vista car accident lawyer can speak with you about filing a claim for compensation. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to discuss your case.

See Related Blog Posts: Motorcycle Awareness Month in Valley Center Distracted Driving Awareness Month in Vista

(image courtesy of David Cohen)

Anyone in Oceanside who has used Roundup weed killer and developed cancer should know that this pesticide may be linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to a recent article in The New York Times, the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, might be a cause of cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), reported recently that glyphosate is “a probable carcinogen,” and it cited links between its use and the development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

A number of individuals who have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma have filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, the maker of the pesticide. The product liability lawsuit alleges that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the risks associated with using Roundup. What else should Oceanside residents know about the risks of Roundup and the possibility of a product defect claim?

Disagreement Over the Effects of Glyphosate

Can glyphosate cause cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma? The article in The New York Times emphasizes that “the safety of glyphosate is not settled science.” While the IARC has indicated that the likelihood of glyphosate being carcinogenic is high, other agencies have disagreed. For example, the European Food Safety Agency, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have not come to the same conclusion about glyphosate exposure and cancer risk.

In 2015 alone, about 220 million pounds of glyphosate were used in the United States. In large part, the weed killer has been used in farming, and individuals in the agriculture industry are the ones alleging that glyphosate causes cancer. A recent report from CNN News indicates that more than 800 patients are suing Monsanto based largely on evidence contained in the IARC report. The plaintiffs allege that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma resulted from the glyphosate in Roundup, combined with the “animals fats and other ingredients” in the weed killer “that increase the carcinogenicity of the glyphosate.”

Did Monsanto Know that Roundup Could Increase a Consumer’s Risk of Cancer?

The CNN News report discusses internal correspondence among individuals at Monsanto in relation to research on glyphosate. If the company that makes Roundup knew that the weed killer posed a cancer risk, it had a duty to warn consumers about that risk before they used it.

In general, there are three different types of product liability claims:

• Design defects, or product defects that exist in the design of the product before it is ever manufactured and before it ever reaches consumers;
• Manufacturing defects, or product defects that happen when the product is being manufactured and before it reaches consumers; and
• Marketing defects or the failure to warn, which is a different type of defect that requires the product maker to warn individuals about known hazards when the product is used in the manner in which it is intended to be used or in an otherwise likely and foreseeable manner.

The plaintiffs in this instance allege a marketing defect, or the failure to warn. They are not saying that there is something wrong with the way Roundup was designed, or the way in which it was manufactured. Instead, there is something wrong with the way it was marketed: Consumers were not adequately warned about cancer risks associated with use of the weed killer.

Contact an Oceanside Product Defect Lawyer

If you have questions about filing a product liability lawsuit, an experienced product defect attorney in Oceanside can assist you. Contact the Walton Law Firm to learn more about the services we provide to personal injury plaintiffs in Southern California.

See Related Blog Posts: New Takata Air Bag Safety Risk and Recall in San Diego Dangerous Toys to Watch Out for in San Diego County

(image courtesy of Andrew Branch)

If you are working at a job site in San Clemente, what kinds of protections can you expect from your employer to prevent a workplace injury? According to a recent article in Bloomberg BNA, there is a new safety rule in California that is designed to protect employees “from high heat in indoor workplaces.” What does the new rule require, and are employers currently obligated to abide by it?

Cal/OSHA Proposal Targets High Heat Workplaces and Heat Illness Prevention

Workplaces in San Clemente and throughout Southern California can be extremely hot in terms of temperature. Even in the winter months when the weather is slightly cooler, workers in many different industries still can be exposed to high temperatures that could result in heat illnesses, which can lead to more debilitating injuries. As the article explains, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has proposed a new rule that would require state employers to “implement a written heat illness prevention plan.” This heat illness prevention plan “could be part of a workplace’s already required illness and injury prevention program, which covers all types of risks.”

This is not the first version of the proposed rule. Previous versions have considered different temperatures as the threshold level, for instance. The most recent version, which was released on May 11, defines the “trigger temperature” as 85 degrees. Once a workplace reaches 85 degrees, then employers would be required to “initiate precaution such as encouraging workers to take cool-down rest breaks and provide free, cool water.”

What kinds of jobsites and types of industries regularly expose workers to high temperatures within indoor spaces? The article highlights that the Cal/OSHA rule would be likely to have the biggest impact on workers in the following places:

• Warehouses;
• Restaurant kitchens;
• Bakeries;
• Recycling plants; and
• Foundries.

Why is there a Need for Heat Illness Prevention Plans?

There is currently no “heat stress rule,” or any kind of triggering threshold temperature, set by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Why, then, is such a rule necessary in California? In short, the state is going above what has been set at the federal level due to the prevalence of heat-related injuries at work. According to Doug Parker, the executive director of the advocacy group Worksafe, “a worksite’s heat index could reach 100 degrees without the employer being required to initiate precautions.”

The rule is not yet in effect; it is still awaiting comment. However, Cal/OSHA plans to have a final rule in effect by January 1, 2019. The rule comes in response to a new California law, SB 1167, which “mandat[ed] state worker safety agencies draft and approve an indoor heat rule.” Until the rule takes effect, it is important for employers and employees alike to be aware of workplace safety issues, particularly concerning heat illness.

Contact a San Clemente Personal Injury Lawyer

If you were injured because of an employer’s negligence, or another party’s carelessness, an experienced San Clemente personal injury attorney can help. You should not be responsible for bearing the financial costs associated with the injury. Contact the Walton Law Firm to learn more about how we can assist with your case.

See Related Blog Posts: Fatal Construction Accident in San Diego County Crane Accident Fatality and Construction Risks

(image courtesy of Louis Moncouyoux)

Over the last several years in areas around San Clemente, tour bus accidents have resulted in serious and fatal injuries. In most—if not all—of these bus crashes, investigators have suggested that the accidents could have been prevented. What are cities in Orange County and San Diego County doing to prevent similar crashes in the future? According to a recent article in The Mercury News, there is a new law in California allowing cities and counties to request tour bus inspections from the California Highway Patrol, yet most cities and counties in the state simply are not using the rule to help avoid tour bus collisions.

Using Assembly Bill 1677 to Prevent Tour Bus Crashes in California

As of January 2017, Assembly Bill 1677 has been in effect. What does this law do? The text of the bill explains that it requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), “upon request of, and in consultation with, representatives of a local government in a jurisdiction where tour buses operate, [to] develop protocols for entering into memoranda of understanding with local governments to allow the department to increase the number of the locally operating tour buses that are being inspected by the department.”

The author of the law, Assemblyman Phil Ting, introduced the bill just over a year ago “after a sightseeing bus went out of control near Union Square and injured 20 people,” according to the article. When Ting introduced the legislation, he emphasized how “dangerous buses fall through the cracks of today’s tour bus safety inspections,” and that communities throughout the state of California need “new tools to take charge and keep local streets safe.” However, spokespersons for the CHP have remarked that, since the law took effect about three months ago, “not one municipality or agency in the state” has used the law to request an inspection.

What is going on?

Are Costs Associated with Assembly Bill 1677 Outweighing County Safety Interests?

The CHP and others believe that one of the reasons no one has requested an inspection concerns cost. In addition to stating the reasons for the new law, the text of Assembly Bill 1677 also clarifies that it includes “a provision that the local government will reimburse the department for all actual costs associated with conducting additional inspections.” That latter part of the law is likely where the problem comes in for cities and counties in the state.

According to the article, cities and counties may not be requesting inspections because they are concerned about the costs associated with an inspection, which they must cover. Rosemary Shahan, the president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, believes the California legislature would have done better to “allocate money to the CHP to pay for additional inspections.”

Yet according to some, the problem is that many agencies in the state simply do not know about the law, and publicizing it could result in requests for inspections. Regardless of the reason, however, it is important to remember that “more than 20 people have died in tour bus crashes in Southern California in the past four years.” As such, something needs to change when it comes to tour buses and safety measures.

Contact a San Clemente Bus Accident Lawyer

If you have questions about filing a personal injury lawsuit, an experienced bus accident lawyer in San Clemente can assist you. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to learn more about how we can help with your claim.

See Related Blog Posts: Deadly Bus Accident in Southern California School Bus Safety Law in San Diego

(image courtesy of Stephane Milot)

For any San Marcos residents who regularly use a Cuisinart food processor in the kitchen, it is extremely important to be aware of a recent product recall that could impact your family’s safety. In most households, we have come to expect that high-end kitchen appliances are safe for use. In particular, devices made by companies like Kitchenaid, Vitamix, and Cuisinart are supposed to provide decades of use as long as they are properly cared for by their owners. However, according to a recent article from ABC 10 News, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), along with Conair (the maker of Cuisinart kitchen appliances), has issued a recall for millions of Cuisinart food processors.

What is wrong with these small kitchen appliances? They pose a risk of laceration, and dozens of consumers across the country have already reported suffering serious mouth injuries as a result of the product defect.

Defective Riveted Blade in Cuisinart Food Processors Results in Massive Recall

In the early weeks of the holiday season, Cuisinart and the CPSC issued a recall for nearly eight million Cuisinart food processors, reporting that the blades could be defective and could result in severe personal injuries. How did the company know about the problem with the food processor blades? It received reports from a wide variety of nearly 70 consumers who indicated they had found “broken blade pieces in their processed food.” Of those consumers, 30 of them (or about 43% of those who filed a report with Cuisinart or the CPSC) indicated that they had sustained “mouth lacerations or tooth injuries.”

Although much kitchen preparation and cooking takes place around the holiday season, just because we have already entered into 2017 does not mean you should avoid taking action on this recall. According to Elliot Kaye, the CPSC Chairman, Cuisinart food processors “are in millions of American homes, including my own.” He emphasized the need to heed the recall notice: “You find out that there’s a problem when you bite down and you cut your mouth and you break your teeth . . . . With all the cooking that’s going on this holiday season [and beyond], we’re really urging consumers to act immediately.”

Check Your Food Processor’s Model Number and Replace the Defective Blade

The defect is not in the small kitchen appliance as a whole, but rather in the riveted blade. How can you identify a defective blade? As the article explains, these blade have four rivets, the blades are made of stainless steel, and they are connected to a beige center made of plastic. There are 22 different model numbers that have been affected by the recall. If you own a Cuisinart food processor, you should immediately check the bottom of it to ensure that you do now have one of the following recalled model numbers: CFP-9, CFP-11, DFP-7, DFP-11, DFP-14, DLC-7, DLC-8, DLC-10, DLC-XP, DLC-2007, DLC-2009, DLC-2011, DLC-2014, DLC-3011, DLC-3014, EV-7, EV-10, EV-11, EV-14, KFP-7, and MP-14.

Do not assume that your product was not affected simply because you have had it for years. The recall affects models that were made and sold between July 1996 and December 2015. In other words, a Cuisinart food processor that you have been using for the last two decades could cause serious injuries. If you do own one of the affected model numbers, you should stop using it immediately and should contact Cuisinart for a replacement blade.

Contact a San Marcos Product Liability Lawyer

If you or someone in your family suffered injuries caused by a defective product, a San Marcos product liability lawyer can help. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to discuss your case.

See Related Blog Posts: Dangerous Toys to Watch Out for in San Diego County Injuries Caused By Exploding E-Cigarettes

(image courtesy of Fourinthemorning)

Residents of San Diego County should be aware that dog bite injuries have been on the rise in California this year. According to a report from CBS News, emergency department visits connected to dog bite injuries have risen by 44% over the last decade in the state. Between 2015 and 2016, dog bite injuries requiring emergency treatment have gone up by about 10%, according to an article in the Modesto Bee. Animal attacks can cause serious and sometimes fatal injuries, especially to young children. What has caused the recent rise in dog bite injuries in California? Who is liable for dog bites in our state?

Rise in Dog Attacks Leaves Experts Confused

As the Modesto Bee article underscores, local animal services employees simply are not certain what has led to the increase in dog attacks in California, particularly the sharp uptick between 2015-2016. The animals services director of Stanislaus County indicated that she “had contacted fellow animal services directors in the state, who had no observations about the data.” Local residents, according to the CBS News report, believe more dog owners are failing to properly train their dogs, which is resulting in more animal attacks across the state. But is there any data to support that conclusion? Currently, the only data we know for certain is that more dog bite injuries are happening in rural counties in California in comparison with urban counties.

We also know that California has the highest rate of homeowner insurance claims related to dog bite injuries. In 2015 alone, there were 1,684 homeowners’ insurance claims connected to animal attacks, a number that actually showed a slight decline from the 1,867 claims reported in 2014. In total last year, an article in the Insurance Journal noted that the total number of dog bite claims had declined across the country, yet certain states (such as California and New York) not only continued to show high numbers of claims, but they also had higher dollar payouts.

In 2015, California had the second-highest average cost for dog bite insurance claims at $44,983 per claim on average. Approximately 20% of all dog bite cases require medical treatment, the article emphasizes, and only a fraction of those victims actually file insurance claims. Why do so few file insurance claims? In short, in many dog bite cases, the victim either was also the owner of the dog, or the dog belonged to a family member or a close friend. As such, the victim chose not to file an insurance claim.

Getting the Facts About Dog Bites and the Law

If you want to file a dog bite lawsuit in California, you might be wondering who may be liable for your injuries. Under California Civil Code Section 3342, “the owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.” This is known as “strict liability.”

What does this mean in practice? As long as you were not bitten while trespassing or otherwise illegally on property, when a dog bites, the owner is liable. You do not need to prove that the owner knew that the dog could be dangerous, and you do not need to prove that the dog had any violent tendencies. Instead, a plaintiff simply must show that she or he was lawfully on the property where she was bitten in order for the dog owner to be held accountable.

Contact a San Diego Dog Bite Lawyer

If you or someone you love recently sustained a dog bite injury, an experienced San Diego dog bite attorney can help. Contact the Walton Law Firm today for more information.

See Related Blog Posts: Recent Dog Bite Cases in Southern California USPS Dog Bite Rankings Released

(image courtesy of Manu Adan)

For quite some time now, UC San Diego has been a “widely acclaimed hub for neuroscience exploration,” according to a recent article in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The university “consistently ranks in the top tier of graduate neuroscience and neurobiology programs in the United States and nationally.” Now, with a donation from the Junior Seau Foundation, traumatic brain injury (TBI) research will expand dramatically at UC San Diego, with a specific focus on sports-related concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

The Junior Seau Foundation was formed back in 1992 by the NFL linebacker who played for the San Diego Chargers from 1990-2002. Seau died as a result of suicide in 2012, and researchers determined that he had been suffering from CTE at the time of his death. How will the donation expand brain injury research at UC San Diego and help to prevent deaths like Seau’s?

Additional Donors Will Match Donation and Will Endow a Faculty Fellowship

The primary way in which the donation from the Junior Seau Foundation will allow the university to expand upon its research is by bringing additional donations to brain injury research at UC San Diego. This will happen in two different ways. First, three separate organizations that are currently “under the UC San Diego umbrella” have agreed to match the $250,000 contribution that came from the Foundation. As such, the university will have about $1 million to explore new opportunities concerning concussions and other traumatic brain injuries.

What will those opportunities look like? First, some of the money will be spent on an endowed faculty fellowship. In addition, the money will be used “to launch the Junior Seau Lectureship Series, which will bring selected K-12 students to campus once a year for presentations on the causes and risks of traumatic brain injuries.” As the article notes, CTE is a degenerative disease of the brain that is diagnosed postmortem by a buildup of protein in the brain. Researchers emphasize that CTE results from “repeated blows to the head,” and more specifically from sports-related concussions. It has numerous symptoms, according to the article, that include but are not limited to:

• Headaches;
• Erratic behavior;
• Memory loss; and
• Social instability.

These symptoms get worse over time.

Raising Awareness About CTE Among Youth Athletes from an Early Age

Given the link between CTE and multiple concussions, it is important for young athletes to know about the dangers of TBIs. The fact that a portion of the Junior Seau Foundation donation will be spent on educating youth athletes may help to reduce the rate of concussions on the field, and ultimately to reduce the number of athletes who develop CTE as a result of multiple blows to the head during their amateur and professional football careers.

Creating an endowed chair position will also allow UC San Diego to continue raising awareness about the connection between CTE and sports-related concussions. According to the article, “having an endowed chair provides the leverage to really stick to a topic and really dig their heels in.” The Junior Seau Endowed Faculty Fellowship in Traumatic Brain Injury, along with the lecture series, will enable the university to engage in community outreach efforts that could make a difference, a news release from UC San Diego Division of Biological Sciences highlights.

Contact a San Diego Brain Injury Attorney

If someone you love sustained a traumatic brain injury, you may be able to file a claim for compensation. An experienced brain injury lawyer in San Diego can assist you. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to discuss your case.

See Related Blog Posts: Football in California May Irreparably Alter Kids’ Brains Youth Football Helmets Recalled Due to Injury Risk

(image courtesy of Jesse Orrico)

Generally speaking, the rate of deadly motorcycle accidents has been declining in the United States over the last decade. However, the rate of fatal motorcycle accidents actually has been rising in California, according to a recent article in Health Canal. While the cumulative rate of motorcycle accidents declined by about 7% in 2013, the rate of motorcycle deaths actually rose by 13% in California. Concerned about the spike in crashes and deaths, Southern California Public Radio (SCPR) looked at motorcycle accident rates between 2003-2012 and determined that fatal crashes increased by 23% across the state.

Why do the numbers make it seem as though motorcycling is more dangerous in California? Are motorcyclists at greater risk of suffering a serious or fatal injury in an accident in our state?

Highest Increases in Motorcycle Accident Fatalities in Southern California

According to the article, the counties with the highest rates of motorcycle accident fatalities were located in Southern California. The largest increase in deadly motorcycle accident rates occurred in Los Angeles County, which saw a 49% rise from 2003 to 2012. The counties that were next in line with extraordinarily high increases in deadly crashes were Orange County and San Diego County. Both counties saw upsurges in serious and fatal motorcycle accident injuries.

While these counties had the most salient increases, the article emphasizes that very few counties reflected the overall decrease in fatalities across the country. In other words, most counties in California saw an uptick in motorcycle injuries between 2003 and 2012.

Helmets Not Apparently a Significant Factor

If we look at the statistics across the country, states that have helmet laws tend to have lower rates of motorcycle accident fatalities. Indeed, as the Health Canal article makes clear, statistics show that helmets reduce the rate of death in motorcycle crashes by about 37%, and they reduce brain injuries by nearly 70%. However, as the article in Health Canal underscores, California has had a universal helmet law in effect since 1992. As such, the rising rate of motorcycle accident fatalities does not seem to be connected to helmet laws.

If helmet laws are not a significant factor, to what should we attribute the increase in motorcycle accident deaths? While experts cannot say with certainty why more crashes and deaths are occurring in California than elsewhere in the country, the report from Southern California Public Radio suggests that the rise in accident injury and fatality rates likely have a causal factor: “inexperienced or rusty riders on the road, enticed by two things: years of rising gas prices and a better economy.”

Impact of Economy and Better Weather in Southern California

According to Chris Cochran, a spokesperson for the California Office of Traffic Safety, “the recession is becoming over, and people are getting out there and doing more of what they were doing earlier.” Cochran suggested that the recession may have prevented recreational motorcyclists from riding due to the costs of maintenance and gas, and now that the economy is bouncing back, more recreational riders can afford to get back on the road.

In addition to the end of the recession, it is also possible that the warm weather in Southern California has been playing a role in the rate of motorcycle accidents. The SCPR report emphasizes that many recreational motorcyclists travel to Southern California to ride. A California Highway Patrol officer told SCPR that California has become “a destination that a lot of riders like to come to,” from other states in the U.S. as well as from other countries.

Contact a San Diego Motorcycle Accident Lawyer

If you or someone you love got hurt in a motorcycle crash, an experienced motorcycle accident attorney in San Diego can help. Contact the Walton Law Firm to learn more about our services.

See Related Blog Posts: Motorcycle Safety Enforcement in California Avoiding Common Motorcycle Accident Scenarios (image courtesy of Jack from Mohrsville Pa., USA)

Whether you are feeling tired on your drive home from work or are fatigued from having been on the highway for hours, drowsy driving can lead to serious and fatal car accidents. Many residents of San Diego get behind the wheel of an automobile when they are too sleepy to concentrate properly, and this practice can be hazardous to other drivers and passengers on the roads, as well as to cyclists and pedestrians.

According to a press release from the National Sleep Foundation, about 96% of Americans surveyed believe that “it is unacceptable for someone to drive when they are so sleepy they have trouble keeping their eyes open,” but more of us drive in such a state than you might think. Around 33% of those surveyed admitted to having driven when they were extremely fatigued at least once in the last 30 days. What else should you know about drowsy driving and how to prevent it?

Learning More About Sleep Safety

One of the keys to preventing drowsy driving, the press release emphasizes, is educating more drivers in the U.S. about “sleep safety.” While most of us likely have not heard that term used before, it is a term that underscores the importance of getting enough sleep before hitting the road. As David Cloud, the CEO of the National Sleep Foundation explains, “people know that they shouldn’t text or drink when they drive, and that’s great.”

Yet, as Cloud went on to articulate, “many don’t realize that driving while drowsy is also dangerous.” If you are having trouble keeping your eyes open while you are driving, you can fall asleep “for just a few seconds and not realize it,” Cloud highlights. And if you do fall asleep for even a few seconds while you are traveling at highway speeds, you could travel hundreds of yards without having any eyes on the road. As a fact sheet from Distraction.gov explains, traveling at a speed of 55 miles per hour (a speed that is below the average speeds on the I-10, for reference) for just five seconds means that you have covered the length of an entire football field.

What does sleepiness do to our bodies? The press release notes that extreme fatigue to the point of falling asleep can result in some of the following:

• Slower reaction times behind the wheel;
• Impaired vision;
• Judgment lapses; and
• Information processing delays.

If you are awake for 20 hours or more without sleeping, studies suggest that you are impaired in a manner that is equivalent to a driver with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08%, which is the legal limit in California.

Preventing Fatigued Driving Accidents

The press release emphasizes that drivers should always do the following before getting behind the wheel:

• Get at least seven to nine hours of sleep before you drive;
• Always drive with another passenger on long car trips;
• Take a break from driving every two hours or 100 miles;
• Pull over and take a nap if you feel tired;
• Do not drink alcohol or take any medications that list drowsiness as a side effect; and
• Consume at least two cups of coffee, or the equivalent in caffeine.

If you or someone you love sustained injuries in a car accident caused by a drowsy driver, a dedicated car accident attorney in San Diego can discuss your options with you. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to learn more about filing a claim.

See Related Blog Posts: Avoiding Pokemon GO Accidents and Injuries Reducing Alcohol-Related Teen Auto Accidents

When we are on neighborhood roads or highways in Southern California, should we be concerned about the risk of a car accident caused by road debris? Most of us are typically on the lookout for other drivers who are not obeying the rules of the road or distracted pedestrians who might inadvertently step into traffic, but according to a recent report from CBS News, dangerous road debris causes far more car crashes than you might expect. Between 2011 and 2014, more than 200,000 collisions have been attributed to debris already in the road or to debris falling from unsecured truck loads. What else should you know about crashes caused by debris, and what can you do to prevent them?

AAA Study Highlights Severity of Crashes Caused by Debris and Unsecured Loads

The CBS News report cites a recent study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, which determined that approximately 39,000 injuries and 500 deaths on the road between 2011 and 2014 resulted from debris. According to Tamra Johnson, a spokesperson for the AAA Foundation, “the really troublesome thing about all this is a majority of these crashes are preventable, if drivers would just take the necessary precautions to secure their load or maintain their vehicle properly.”

The AAA Foundation describes these accidents as vehicle-related road debris (VRRD) crashes, and it indicates that around 25,000 VRRD crashes occur in North America every year. Of those accidents, anywhere from 80-90 deaths occur. Peter Kissinger, the President and CEO of the AAA Foundation, explains that VRRD crashes “are generally less severe than other crashes,” yet “individual incidents can be catastrophic.”

While it might not sound like a major ordeal to swerve to avoid a piece of debris in the road, such incidents frequently lead to severe and fatal collisions. The CBS News report cites a recent incident in which a West Coast driver swerved to get out of the way of a metal shelf that flew out of the back of a pickup truck on the highway. In attempting to avoid the metal shelf, the driver crashed into another vehicle and lost his life. According to the report, that is how about 37% of VRRD accident deaths occur. Most often, fatal VRRD crashes happen “on a freeway in the middle of the day.”

Preventing Vehicle-Related Debris Accidents in San Diego

What can we do in San Diego to prevent accidents caused by road debris? The most important thing is for drivers carrying loads in pickup trucks or other vehicles to ensure that their loads are properly secured. Even if you think a single strap will hold down the load you are carrying, use additional devices to ensure that anything in the bed of your truck will not cause a serious or fatal accident on the highway. As the CBS News report suggests, “if you wouldn’t want your family driving behind what you’re hauling, it’s a good sign it’s probably not safe.”

If you or a loved one sustained injuries in a traffic collision caused by another driver’s negligence, you should consider filing a claim for compensation. An experienced car accident attorney in San Diego can help. Contact the Walton Law Firm today to learn more about our services.

See Related Blog Posts: Avoiding Pokemon GO Accidents and Injuries Using Crash-Test Dummies to Make Uber Riding Safer

(image courtesy of Dodgerton Skillhause)

For many San Diego residents, ensuring that our children stay properly hydrated during a day at the beach is a top priority. But are the water bottles our kids are using actually safe? According to a recent article in Fortune Magazine, the federal government has issued a recall for a number of water bottles designed for children and sold by the popular company L.L. Bean because of the lead content in these dangerous products. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reported the product defect and indicated that five styles of L.L. Bean’s water bottles were not safe for children to continue using.

What else do you need to know about this recent product recall? What are signs of lead poisoning that can result from the type of dangerous product involved in the recall?

Learning More About the L.L. Bean Recall

The CPSC issued a recall for five different styles of L.L. Bean water bottles “amid concern of lead in the exterior base of the bottles,” according to the article. Which water bottles have been affected? Take note of the following color prints that were listed on the CPSC’s recall list:

• Dino Bones;
• Flower Power;
• Orange Grid camo;
• Purple Tie Dye Butterfly; and
• Robo Shark.

The bottles were manufactured in China, but they were sold at stores throughout the United States. While no injuries have been reported thus far, 6,700 of these defective water bottles have already been sold. As such, it is important for parents to be aware of the risks of lead exposure and to prevent their kids from continuing to use these bottles.

How is lead present in these bottles? The CPSC reported that there are “high levels of lead in the solder at the exterior base of the bottle.” L.L. Bean’s website provided additional information, explaining that the company conducted tests on the bottles and found a defect in the sealing process at the bottom of the product. Specifically, the website recall notice explained, “some of the water bottles provided to L.L. Bean were erroneously sealed on the bottom with a solder bead containing lead instead of the lead-free solder bead originally specified.” The notice went on to emphasize how using these bottles can expose children to lead. As such, it is extremely important to cease use of these products immediately and to return them to the company for a refund.

Identifying Products Affected by the Recall

If you believe you might have one of these bottles, locate the item identification number, which is printed on the bottom of the products. If you see any of the following letter and number combinations, stop using your bottle and return it to L.L. Bean:

• Identification number 297684;
• PO#844; and
• BB2D@-LLB-R45-0413.

According to a fact sheet from the Mayo Clinic, lead poisoning builds slowly in the body over time, and it ultimately can result in some of the following symptoms:

• Developmental delays;
• Learning difficulties;
• Irritable behavior;
• Loss of appetite and/or weight loss;
• Fatigue;
• Hearing difficulties; and
• Abdominal pain.

Contact a San Diego Product Defect Lawyer

If you or someone you love recently sustained injuries because of a defective product, you should discuss your options with a San Diego product liability lawyer as soon as possible. Contact the Walton Law Firm today.

See Related Blog Posts: Injuries Caused By Exploding E-Cigarettes Recent Product Recalls Linked to Child Injuries

(image courtesy of LLBean.com)