If you are injured by a defective product in Escondido, you most likely will be eligible to file a product liability lawsuit. Depending upon the defect associated with the product and the way in which you got hurt, you could be able to file a design defect claim, a manufacturing defect lawsuit, or a marketing defect case. However, in some situations, product designers, manufacturers, and sellers may have immunity from certain types of claims. In the new era of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) gives liability to certain manufacturers who are designing and manufacturing products for combatting the coronavirus. Most immediately, the PREP Act could give automakers immunity in situations in which products like ventilators turn out to be defective.

We want to say more about the PREP Act and how its immunity provision could prevent consumers from filing product liability lawsuits. At the same time, we will explain the limitations of PREP Act immunity for defective products.

Immunity from Product Defect Cases Under the PREP Act

Since the start of the COVID-19 emergency in the United States, manufacturers in varying industries have shifted to designing and manufacturing products aimed at combating the disease caused by coronavirus exposure. Most notably, perhaps, is the way in which some automakers have shifted to producing ventilators as opposed to automobile parts. Under ordinary circumstances, automakers that design and manufacture defective products can be held liable for injuries in product liability lawsuits.

Under the PREP Act, however, automakers (and other entities developing products aimed at fighting the COVID-19 pandemic) likely will have immunity from any claims that could arise as a result of defective ventilators or other products created to provide countermeasures to coronavirus infections. Indeed, the PREP Act “provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined . . . to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures.”

Limitations of PREP Act Liability?

To put all of that another way, nearly any individual or entity involved in the design, manufacture, sale, or distribution of public health emergency products will be immune from liability in the event that one of those products ends up being defective. However, it is important to know that there are limitations. The emergency use authorization (EUA) only extends through October 2024. While automakers and others may have immunity up until that date, it is possible that any injury resulting from a product defect that occurs after that date may not be subject to the immunity provided by the PREP Act. In other words, if an injury occurs after October 2024, the injured consumer may be able to file a product liability lawsuit.

To be clear, PREP Act immunity does not apply to products that are not related to fighting the pandemic. For example, automakers are still liable for injuries caused by product defects in automobiles. Yet ventilators and other similar items may result in immunity through late 2024.

Contact an Escondido Product Liability Lawyer

If you have questions about filing a defective product claim, an Escondido product liability attorney can help. Contact the Walton Law Firm for more information.

See Related Blog Posts: BMW Recalls Vehicles Due to Child Car Seat Safety Defect What Parents in Oceanside Should Know About the Inclined Sleeper Recall

Do you own a Ford Fusion, or have you been thinking about purchasing a used Ford Fusion? Anyone in California who is currently in possession of a Ford Fusion or has considering buying one of these vehicles used should pay close attention to a recent product recall. According to a recent article in USA Today, “several dozen Ford Fusion owners complained in recent months that their steering wheels had some loose or had come off completely while driving.” After receiving numerous reports of this serious safety defects, Ford issued a large-scale recall impacting at least 1.4 million Fusion models and Lincoln MKZ Sedans. What else should you know about the recall and the dangers posed by auto product defects?

Loose Steering Wheels Could Cause Serious and Fatal Car Accidents

To be clear, 1.4 million vehicles are subject to a safety recall because their steering wheels either can become loose while a person is behind the wheel, or the steering wheel can fall off entirely while a person is driving. According to Ford, the cause of the problem is “potentially loose steering wheel bolts” which can “result in a steering wheel detaching from the steering column.” Ford indicated that, as far as the company knows, two accidents have occurred thus far, and at least one injury has happened.

However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) suggests that problems with Ford steering wheels are wider spread. The NHTSA complaint database for auto safety defects “reveals more than 45 independent report of problems in the last few years.” Owners of Ford Fusions have submitted numerous complaints to the automaker about the dangerous steering wheel defect. The following are some quotes from consumer complaints:

• “While driving on the interstate, steering wheel came loose and car veered off interstate”;
• “My 2014 Ford Fusion steering wheel became unstable and I drifted into a manhole in the street . . . and totaled my car”;
• “While entering the vehicle, knee bumped the steering wheel and the steering wheel became detached”;
• “While driving approximately 55 mph, the steering wheel detached from the steering column”;
• “My steering wheel has become very loose and feels like it’s going to fall off”;
• “I was driving in a parking lot . . . and the steering wheel came so loose that it almost came right off”; and
• “The steering became a little wobbly over the past two weeks . . . . I went to turn in gas station and the steering wheel fell off in my lap.”

Filing a Product Defect Lawsuit in California

If you get hurt as a result of a defective product, what do you need to prove in order to win a product liability lawsuit in California? The California Civil Jury Instructions explain that product liability claims are brought under a theory of strict liability, and the plaintiff must prove the following:

• Plaintiff was harmed by a product distributed, manufactured, or sold by the defendant; and
• Product contained a manufacturing defect or was defectively designed or did not include sufficient instruction or a warning of potential safety hazards.

Contact a San Clemente Product Defect Attorney

Were you injured by a safety defect? An experienced San Clemente product defect attorney can help with your case. Contact the Walton Law Firm to speak with an experienced advocate today.

See Related Blog Posts: Safety Recalls Affecting Valley Center Residents Do Millennials Pay Attention to Product Recalls and Injury Risks?

(image courtesy of Kalu Ci)

When parents in Poway and throughout Southern California buy food products for their kids, they should be able to expect that these items will not result in unexpected injuries. Unfortunately, however, foods we buy at the local grocery store can contain product defects that lead to serious injuries. According to a recent article in The New York Times, boxed macaroni and cheese products made with powdered cheese could be causing harm to your kids. Could this popular food, especially among children, be the potential basis for product liability claims in California?

Are Boxed Macaroni and Cheese Products Harmful to Your Child’s Health?

As the article explains, it looks as though the powdered cheese contained in many of these boxed products contains high amounts of phthalates, chemicals that “can disrupt male hormones like testosterone and have been linked to genital birth defects in infant boys and learning and behavior problems in older children.” Are these chemicals found naturally in cheese? In short, the answer is no. Rather, phthalates can “migrate into food from packaging and equipment used in manufacturing.” Young children and pregnant women should be particularly concerned with the risks associated with these chemicals.

Phthalates have been known to have the potential for causing injury for quite some time. The article emphasizes that these “potentially harmful chemicals . . . were banned from children’s teething rings and rubber duck toys a decade ago.” For the last several years, federal agencies have been tasked with assessing the risk of phthalates inasmuch as they are present in food products that kids continue to consume. The FDA submitted a report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2014, which “urged federal agencies to assess risks with a view to supporting risk management steps.”

Why are boxed macaroni and cheese products getting singled out? While phthalates have been found in a variety of foods, drugs, and beverages, a recent study of 30 different cheese products determined that the potentially hazardous chemical was present in 29 of the items. Worse yet, the highest concentrations of phthalates existed in cheese powder packets that are part of boxed macaroni and cheese products.

Food Product Defects and Consumer Injuries

More food products may contain hazards that are subjecting them to recalls. For instance, a report from Consumer Affairs notes that, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cited fewer food-related recalls in 2017, the total number of recalled units rose earlier this year by 507% to nearly 92 million food products in just the first quarter. Some food recalls should not necessarily be cause for concern. For instance, sometimes recalls happen because of a minor mislabeling issue that will not necessarily lead to an injury for the ordinary family. At the same time, some food product recalls are indeed serious, posing significant risks to kids and adults alike.

Are macaroni and cheese mixes one of these products? Keep in mind that although no recalls have been issued for boxed macaroni and cheese products, and the FDA has not banned certain recipes for these foods, it is nonetheless important for parents to be aware of potential risks.

A Product Liability Lawyer in Poway Can Help

If you have concerns about product safety, or if you believe your child may have suffered harm as a result of a product defect, a Poway product liability lawyer may be able to help with your case. Contact the Walton Law Firm to learn more about the services we provide.

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 Jakob Owens)

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)

First Drug of Its Kind Comes with Significant Side Effects

The recently approved drug, flibanserin, was manufactured by Sprout Pharmaceuticals and will be sold under the brand name Addyi. It’s designed to “help premenopausal women diagnosed with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) regain their sex drives by boosting dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the brain.” When the FDA previously rejected the drug, it emphasized that some serious safety issues existed with the medication. Taking note, Sprout Pharmaceuticals conducted more studies and has now seen the drug approved for consumer use.

Yet the drug does come with some serious side effects, including the risk of “severe low blood pressure and fainting spells.” And drinking alcohol substantially intensifies this problem. Indeed, the FDA has insisted that healthcare professionals who prescribe Addyi should “assess the likelihood of the patient reasonably abstaining from alcohol” before actually prescribing the medication. Physicians who could end up prescribing Addyi will be required to complete a training program, the article reported.

Due to its problematic interaction with alcohol, the FDA has also required the drug’s manufacturer to “conduct three post-marketing studies to shed light on how the drug is interacting with alcohol in real-world settings.” Sprout Pharmaceuticals also has agreed to wait for eighteen months before advertising Addyi.

Controversy Over Addyi’s Approval

The drug actually was invented a number of years ago and received its first rejection from the FDA in 2010. Before its rejection, it had undergone two Phase III trials, and it “did chart a statistically significant improvement in desire as measured by the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI).” However, when patients in the study tracked their sexual desire in a daily electronic diary, Addyi failed to “significantly beat out placebo.”

A second rejection followed the first, even after Sprout Pharmaceuticals noted modest effects of the drug. The FDA cited “skepticism about FSFI and a bevy of safety issues” when Addyi received its second rejection. Last year, however, Sprout ran Phase I trials that were “designed to address concerns about Addyi’s interaction with other drugs and its effect on patients’ ability to drive the morning after use.” This time, the FDA voted in favor of approving the drug.

Some commentators argue that the drug’s previous rejections may have had less to do with harmful side effects and more to do with social stigma and issues of gender equality. As one advocacy group pointed out, “the FDA has approved more than 20 drugs for erectile dysfunction but never [before] cleared a treatment for female sexual desire disorder.” Janet Woodcock, the FDA drug approval chief, emphasized that the FDA is thinking deeply about women’s health issues and is “committed to supporting the development of safe and effective treatments for female sexual dysfunction.”

Addyi won’t go on the market until October. Will the potentially hazardous side effects of the drug result in patient injuries and a safety recall, or will those possible side effects remain present in only a small percentage of women who take the medication? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, if you or someone you love suffered an injury after taking a medication, you should discuss your case with a dedicated San Diego product liability lawyer.

Photo Credit: The Javorac via Compfight cc See Related Blog Posts: Car Recalls: What Should You Know? Dangerous Recalls and Children’s Products

While companies who make detergent pods have attempted to make these hazardous products safer for households with young kids, the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) continues to receive reports about severe child injuries. As such, Consumer Reports recently decided not to include laundry detergent pods on its list of recommended products, and the magazine even went so far as to “strongly urge households where children younger than 6 are ever present to skip them altogether.”

Dangers of Laundry Detergent Pods

Between January and June of 2015, poison control centers across the country have received thousands of reports about laundry detergent pods. Indeed, more than 6,000 reports in six months alone have described “kids 5 and younger ingesting or inhaling pods, or getting pod contents on their skin or in their eyes.” In 2014, the AAPCC reported a total of 11,714 poisonings connected to laundry detergent pods. If the current rates for 2015 stay on pace, the number of incidents this year will surpass those in 2014. And this wouldn’t be an anomaly—the total number of injuries linked to laundry detergent pods has been on the rise since the product was introduced nearly four years ago.

Popular laundry detergent companies such as Tide and Gain produce these pods, and amidst reports of child injuries a number of manufacturers have taken steps to help make them safer in homes with kids. For instance, companies have switched “from clear to opaque plastic for outer containers and, on some, adding child-resistant latches to make it more difficult to get to the pods.” However, children continue to come into contact with these hazardous products.

Why are laundry detergent pods attractive to young children? A fact sheet presented by the AAPCC explains of these packets that, “because they are colorful and squishy . . . they can look like candy or something fun to play with.” But when children swallow the highly concentrated detergent or get it in their eyes, they can sustain serious injuries. To be sure, many kids “have become very ill and have been hospitalized.”

Unknown Variables Affect Kids’ Treatment After Exposure

A recent report from The Wall Street Journal attempted to explore the reasons why these laundry detergent pods are so dangerous. The question is a significant one, as “children have been sampling regular detergent for years without such harm.” But with the pods, emergency department physicians have seen a wide range of outcomes among kids who ingested or were otherwise exposed to the concentrated detergent in these packets. According to Brandon Wills, a toxicologist, “we don’t know why some children get so sick from laundry pods.” As the article explains, “while the contents of the packets are highly concentrated, and the detergent can shoot out with force when the packets are burst, it isn’t clear what substances in them can cause life-threatening injuries.”

Currently, emergency room doctors simply don’t have enough information to best treat these injuries. Knowing precisely why some kids are gravely affected would help tremendously in healing injuries, but “consumer-product manufacturers have closely guarded the details of how they formulated and what kind of testing they did with laundry packets.” Makers of these pods aren’t required to give a full listing of ingredients, but the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is urging companies to adopt voluntary safety standards that would make the pods safer.

Researchers continue to explore some of the variables that they believe can result in laundry detergent pods affecting different children in dissimilar ways. If your child suffered an injury from a laundry detergent pod, you should discuss your case with an experienced San Diego product liability lawyer. You may be eligible to file a claim for compensation.

Photo Credit: Jeremy Brooks via Compfight cc See Related Blog Posts: Do Product Recalls Prevent Consumer Injury? Dangerous Airbag Recall Expands