If you’re from the Philadelphia area and you’re a major soccer fan, it’s possible you’ve heard of Daniel “Danny” Califf. Mr. Califf is the former captain of the Philadelphia Union team in Major League Soccer. However, you probably have not heard of Mr. Califf’s injuries, which he suffered as a result of an exploding E-Cigarette…. Continue Reading
The answer is short: no. At some point in every smoker’s life, we are told that smoking cigarettes are not safe and they will damage our health over time. We are told that cigarettes will damage our teeth, our lungs, and cause cancer. We are even told that the cigarettes will kill us. I myself… Continue Reading
Ten years ago, Candace Anderson, a 21 year old young woman, was convicted of criminal negligent homicide as a result of a one car motor vehicle crash. Ms. Anderson lost control of her 2004 GM Saturn Ion. Her fiancé, a front seat passenger, was killed in the crash when his passenger side air bag failed… Continue Reading
Personal injury attorneys are advocates for people who have been injured in an accident, whether it is a slip and fall, trip and fall, work related, car, motorcycle or recreational accident. Our job is to represent the rights of the injured party, not the insurance company. So, why do personal injury attorneys have such a… Continue Reading
Stark & Stark attorneys have filed a putative class action lawsuit against helmet maker Riddell, alleging that advertising claiming its products help reduce concussions was false or misleading. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Camden, New Jersey, asserts that the plaintiff spent $459 on a Revolution helmet, after the plaintiff’s son viewed a video advertisement on the Internet. The Riddell helmet cost at least $50 more than competitive helmets, and at least 1000 Revolution helmets were sold in New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the purchasers were induced to pay more by faulty advertising claims. Riddell advertisements asserted that their helmet, utilizing “concussion reduction technology”, reduced injury risks by 31%. The basis for the assertion was a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center study, which compared concussion rates between two groups of high school players. The study was partly overseen by Riddell’s vice president of research and development, and the lawsuit alleges that the methodology used in the study led to shoddy science. In fact, the lawsuit alleges, scientific studies show that the brand of football helmet makes no difference in the player’s risk of concussion and that high-tech helmets like the Revolution do not reduce concussion risk for players any more effectively than low-cost helmets. Riddell has stopped running the claim that injury risks are reduced by 31%.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently announced that Graco is voluntarily recalling 11 of 18 model seats that the government agency has asked it to recall, as a result of a buckling issue. This recall affects 3,700,000 car seats, making it one of the biggest such recalls ever, according to officials who indicated that it is the fourth biggest recall of car seats. The seven remaining models of seats are being reviewed by the agency, and its investigation will remain open pending its evaluation of the recall and its review of the other model seats. If the additional models are added to this recall, it will be the biggest car seat recall ever.
Newspapers and social media sites have been buzzing about a lawsuit which was recently filed in New Jersey which is drawing comparison to the “Hot Coffee” case of 1994. In the case which was just filed in New Jersey state court, the Plaintiff, Jennifer Fragoso, is claiming that Dunkin’ Donuts served a product which was too hot for consumption, and as she was parked in the parking lot, the lid to her hot cider came loose, causing the hot cider to spill on her, resulting in second and third degree burns.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency responsible for monitoring consumer products, including toys, has recently recalled a number of products and toys, which you may have purchased as holiday gifts. I am listing five specific items, each of which poses a health hazard, according to the CPSC. If you or any one you know has purchased any of these products, please act in accordance with the instructions given by the CPSC.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency responsible for monitoring consumer products, including toys, has issued a news report, which can be found here, warning consumers about the risks and dangers inherent in the holiday gift giving, specifically toys. The CPSC estimates that 192,000 toy-related, emergency department treated injuries occurred in 2012. That’s a frightening statistic.
Under New Jersey law, ordinarily you are not responsible for injuries caused by someone else driving your car. However, there are certain circumstances in which you may be responsible. A motor vehicle, after all, can be a deadly weapon and therefore you have an obligation to act responsibly when loaning it.