Nair Law LLC
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Rishi Nair >
      • Representative Experience
      • Publications & Awards
      • Professional & Civic Activities
      • Additional Background
  • Nair Law LLC Blog
  • Press Coverage
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Defective Baby Dresser Lawsuit Filed

3/15/2013

0 Comments

 
Product liability actions are premised on three major categories:
1. Failure to Warn
2. Defective Design
3. Manufacturing Defect

The Chicago Tribune reports that the parents of a toddler have filed suit against the manufacturer of their baby dresser for a product defect and for failure to warn about the dangers of their dresser when it tipped over and killed their 2 year old son.  Their case seems to allege both a failure to warn as well as defective design of the furniture.
First, from the limited facts contained in the article, it appears they are alleging both that the product was defectively designed in that it lacked a mechanism to anchor the dresser to a wall so as to prevent tip overs.  This mechanism was inexpensive, known and common to the industry, and would have prevented the injury in question.  Moreover, it is foreseeable that such an injury could occur and manufacturers should be very careful with baby oriented products so as to design safe products.

Second, they allege that the manufacturer failed to even warn about the potential hazards that a top heavy, unbalanced dresser could pose.  This is where most skeptics of the civil justice system cringe. It may seem obvious to most that furniture that could be top heavy could therefore tip over.  It seems obvious that babies could easily be harmed by such a calamity.  The problem is that if it is so obvious then skeptics wonder (loudly) why a manufacturer should be penalized for not warning about something everyone knows or should realize without a warning.

The response most product liability attorneys come up with is that everyone deserves a clear warning as to the risks of a product for both known uses, but also foreseeable misuses of a product.  The perfect example is from the popcorn lung case I wrote about earlier. There a consumer ate incredible amounts of microwaveable popcorn to the point where he suffered a debilitating lung condition from the butter used on the popcorn.  It was foreseeable for the manufacturer that a consumer could eat enough of the product to become sick, even if that usage was far above what the manufacturer envisioned.

Here, it is entirely foreseeable that someone would overstuff the top drawer, resulting in a tip over.  The fact about how the manufacturer is now offering a simple fix goes both ways in proving negligence or faulty design.  The fact the simple fix exists, was industry standard, and could have prevented the injury and subsequent death will not help the manufacturer defend this case, however, their offering of the fix now may not be probative to the actual issues in this case.

Regardless, manufacturers and consumers need to consider all of their options carefully with product liability claims.  Choosing the right attorney to break down these issues and present them clearly to both a judge and jury is essential to maximizing recovery for the plaintiff and minimizing exposure for the defendant.  Often, especially with cases involving injuries and death to children, a settlement offers both sides the most efficient way to a resolution.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C.

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    Categories

    All
    Accident
    ADA
    Affirmative Defense
    Alienation Of Affection
    Appeal
    Association
    Award
    Bankruptcy
    Breach Of Contract
    Breach Of Warranty
    Cancellation
    Cease And Desist
    Certify
    Choice Of Forum
    Choice Of Law
    Civil Rights
    Civil Rights Act Of 1964
    Class
    Class Action
    Commerce Clause
    Common Carrier
    Common Elements
    Compliance
    Condo
    Condominium
    Constitution
    Constitutional Rights
    Contracts
    Conversion
    Countersue
    Criminal Defense
    Debt
    Debt Collector
    Deep Dish Pizza
    Defamation
    Defense
    Dilution
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Dog Bite
    Driver
    Duty Of Care
    Elements
    Employment
    Employment Litigation
    Expert
    Express Warranty
    Failure To Maintain
    Fall Protection
    FDCPA
    Federal
    Federal Law
    First Amendment
    FOIA
    Forcible Entry And Detainer Act
    Forum Non Conveniens
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Hotel
    Illinois
    Illinois Law
    Implied Warranty
    Infringement
    Injunction
    Insurance
    Intellectual Property
    Intentional Tort
    IP Litigation
    IP Litigation
    Jury
    Jury Verdict
    Lawsuit
    Litigation
    Medical Malpractice
    Negligence
    Negotiate
    Osha
    Personal Injury
    Product Liability
    Property
    Protected Conduct
    Real Estate Landlord Tenant Ordinance
    Real Property
    Reckless
    Retaliation
    RLTO
    Safety
    Second Appellate District
    Section 1983
    Seniority
    Settlement
    Seventh Circuit
    Special
    Speeding
    Sports
    Subrogation
    Tax
    Taxation
    Ticket
    Title VII
    Tort
    Tortious Interference
    Trademark
    Trademark Enforcement
    Trademark Litigation
    Trespass
    Trespass To Chattels
    TTAB
    Uniform Commercial Code
    Unpaid
    Vehicle
    Workplace Accident

    RSS Feed

    Privacy Policy
    Terms of Use
    Disclaimer


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Phil Roeder