<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NBA Law Blog - Neblett Beard &#38; Arsenault &#187; consumer-products-safety-commission</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nbalawblog.com/keywords/consumer-products-safety-commission/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nbalawblog.com</link>
	<description>Legal News and Discussions powered by the Lawyers of NBALawFirm</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:30:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Siemens Recalls Circuit Breakers Due to Fire Hazard</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/09/27/siemens-recalls-circuit-breakers-due-to-fire-hazard/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/09/27/siemens-recalls-circuit-breakers-due-to-fire-hazard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Neblett Beard &#38; Arsenault</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Recalls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-richard-arsenault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[braker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-breaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpsc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fire-hazard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[siemens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsafe-products]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=3827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Name of Product: Siemens and Murray Circuit Breakers, Load [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-3831" title="Photo-Inside-Siemens-Circuit-Breaker-Recall" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/09/Photo-Inside-Siemens-Circuit-Breaker-Recall-350x176.jpg" alt="" width="350" height="176" />The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.</p>
<p><strong>Name of Product:</strong> Siemens and Murray Circuit Breakers, Load Centers and Meter Combos</p>
<p><strong>Units:</strong> About 2.2 million</p>
<p><strong>Importer:</strong> Siemens Industry Inc., of Alpharetta, Ga.</p>
<p><strong>Hazard:</strong> The recalled circuit breakers have a spring clip that can break during normal use, leading to a loss of force to maintain a proper electrical connection in the panelboard. This can lead to excessive temperature, arcing or thermal damage at the connection point, and damage to the panelboard’s electrical insulation and can result in a fire, property damage, or personal injury.</p>
<p><strong>Incidents/Injuries:</strong> Siemens has received one report of a circuit breaker spring clip that broke during installation. No injuries have been reported.</p>
<p><strong>Description:</strong> This recall involves Siemens and Murray 15 through 50 AMP single and double pole circuit breakers, load centers (circuit breakers that come with an electrical panel), and meter combos (contain a load center and a meter socket). “Siemens” or “Murray,” date codes 0610 or 0710 and the catalog number are printed on a label on the side of the circuit breakers. Date codes between June 2010 through August 2010 are stamped on the inside of the metal box of the load centers and meter combos. The catalog number for the load centers and meter combos is printed on a label inside the metal box door and on the packaging.</p>
<p><strong>Recalled Product:</strong> Circuit Breakers<br />
Date Codes: <span style="font-size: x-small;">0610, 0710<br />
</span>Catalog Numbers: <span style="font-size: x-small;">Q115, Q120, Q130, Q215, Q230, Q250, MP115, MP115U, MP120, MP130, MP215, MP230, MP230U, MP250</span></p>
<p><strong>Recalled Product:</strong> <span style="font-size: x-small;">Load Centers<br />
</span>Date Codes: <span style="font-size: x-small;">Jun 23 2010 – Aug 25 2010<br />
</span>Catalog Numbers: <span style="font-size: x-small;">G2020B1100CP, G3030B1100CP, G4040B1200CUSGP, LC4040B1200P, G3040B1200CP, G3040L1200CP, G4040B1200CP, G3030B1150CP, W3040B1200CP, G1624L1125CP, W4040B1200CP</span></p>
<p><strong>Recalled Product:</strong> <span style="font-size: x-small;">Meter Combo<br />
</span>Date Codes: <span style="font-size: x-small;">Jun 23 2010 – Aug 25 2010<br />
</span>Catalog Numbers: <span style="font-size: x-small;">JA2040B1200SP</span></p>
<p><strong>Sold at:</strong> The Home Depot, Lowes, other hardware and building supply stores and numerous electrical distributors nationwide from June 2010 through August 2010 for between $2.50 to $235.</p>
<p><strong>Manufactured in:</strong> Mexico</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/09/27/siemens-recalls-circuit-breakers-due-to-fire-hazard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Toxic Miley Cyrus Jewelry Recalled</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/05/27/toxic-miley-cyrus-jewelry-toys-recalled/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/05/27/toxic-miley-cyrus-jewelry-toys-recalled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 23:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bracelet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cadmium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[charms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpsc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diarrhea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewelry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kidney-damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miley-cyrus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stomach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vomiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[walmart]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=3688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Giant retailer WalMart was forced to pull its Miley Cyrus line of children’s jewelry from its shelves after high levels of the toxic metal cadmium were found. WalMart has known of the high cadmium levels since February but chose to continue to sell the product. However, when nationwide reports began to surface, WalMart finally decided [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Giant retailer WalMart was forced to pull its Miley Cyrus line of children’s jewelry from its shelves after high levels of the toxic metal cadmium were found. WalMart has known of the high cadmium levels since February but chose to continue to sell the product. However, when nationwide reports began to surface, WalMart finally decided to do the right thing for its customers. The Miley Cyrus make-it-yourself charm bracelets were big sellers for WalMart which defended its decision to keep selling the toy by requiring suppliers to prove that the children’s item had little or no cadmium. WalMart did not apply that high standard to items already on its shelves. In response to inquiries at a hearing of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, WalMart said testing the items itself would be too difficult.</p>
<p>Cadmium had no good effects on human health. High level cadmium levels irritate the stomach leading to vomiting and diarrhea. Ingesting cadmium has also been linked to high blood pressure, iron poor blood, liver, kidney, nerve and brain damage. Breathing cadmium can severly damage the lungs and cause death.</p>
<p>WalMart was finally forced to stop selling the defective products after extensive reporting of the toxic nature of the toys. It appears they continued to sell the products which are specifically marketed to children because of the lucrative sales resulting in big profits. Although the defective toys have been pulled from the shelves, how many children have already been exposed to the toxic cadmium? We need to have better testing and approval procedures BEFORE these imported products reach American consumers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/05/27/toxic-miley-cyrus-jewelry-toys-recalled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Child Deaths Spur Recall of Toy Dart Gun</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/05/19/child-deaths-spur-recall-of-toy-dart-gun/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/05/19/child-deaths-spur-recall-of-toy-dart-gun/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 19:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Recalls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpsc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dart-gun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family-dollar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gordy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OKK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[store]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toy-gun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsafe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful-death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=3670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. CPSC issued a mandatory recall of nearly 2 million “Auto Fire” toy dart gun sets following the deaths of two children who inhaled the darts and suffocated when the suction cups blocked their airways. The toy dart guns are sold at Family Dollar Stores and are imported from China by Henry Gordy International, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. CPSC issued a mandatory recall of nearly 2 million “Auto Fire” toy dart gun sets following the <a title="Wrongful Death" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/wrongful-death/" target="_blank">deaths</a> of two children who inhaled the darts and suffocated when the suction cups blocked their airways. The toy dart guns are sold at Family Dollar Stores and are imported from China by Henry Gordy International, Inc.</p>
<p>The retailer is cooperating with the recall although the importer maintains the toy meets federal safety rules. Their attorney insists the toy is not unreasonably dangerous because “there really isn’t any reason for a child to put this plastic dart in their mouth” even though the company has known the toy was deadly for more than three years. The first child death occurred in late 2006 and Gordy was notified in January of 2007.</p>
<p>The CPSC sent a draft recall alert letter to Gordy’s attorney last September, but the company declined to recall the $1.50 toy. Because nearly all recalls are voluntary, the safety commission negotiates the wording of recall alerts with the manufacturers or importers to avoid forcing mandatory recalls which can result in lengthy court battles. Despite lengthy negotiations with Gordy, the importer continued to refuse to recall the toy so the CPSC turned to the retailer Family Dollar who voluntarily stopped selling it in January 2009.</p>
<p>This recall and one involving a different suction cup dart toy imported by OKK Trading Inc. which was linked to the 2007 death of a child in Texas has caused consumer advocates and toy industry officials to rethink their position regarding choking hazards in children older than three years of age. Rules generally are written with the idea that children over the age of 3 don&#8217;t put toys in their mouths.The committee that sets toy safety standards will now study which toys older kids put in their mouths. In the meantime, parents should immediately discard the Auto Fire toy gun dart sets and make sure their children stay away from any short, pliable toy darts with a suction cup end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/05/19/child-deaths-spur-recall-of-toy-dart-gun/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Baby Slings Recalled After 3 Infant Deaths</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/03/24/baby-slings-recalled-after-3-infant-deaths/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/03/24/baby-slings-recalled-after-3-infant-deaths/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Neblett Beard &#38; Arsenault</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baby-sling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpsc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infantino]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful-death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=3424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is the latest from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission: WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health Canada (HC), in cooperation with Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif. are announcing a free replacement program for the Infantino “SlingRider” and “Wendy Bellissimo” infant slings. One million of these infant slings [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is the latest from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission:</p>
<p>WASHINGTON, D.C. &#8211; The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health Canada (HC), in cooperation with Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif. are announcing a free replacement program for the Infantino “SlingRider” and “Wendy Bellissimo” infant slings. One million of these infant slings are being recalled in the United States and 15,000 are being recalled in Canada. CPSC advises consumers to immediately stop using these slings for infants younger than four months of age due to a risk of suffocation and contact Infantino for a free replacement product.</p>
<p>CPSC is aware of three reports of deaths that occurred in these slings in 2009; a 7-week-old infant in Philadelphia, Pa.; a 6-day-old infant in Salem, Ore.; and a 3-month-old infant in Cincinnati, Ohio.</p>
<p>The Infantino “SlingRider,” is a soft fabric baby carrier with a padded shoulder strap that is worn by parents and caregivers to carry an infant weighing up to 20 lbs. “Infantino” is printed on the plastic slider located on the strap. “Infantino,” “SlingRider” and the item number are printed on the instruction/warning label inside the baby sling carrier. “Wendy Bellissimo” branded sling carriers were sold exclusively at Babies “R” Us and have a sewn-in label on the inside of the sling strap that says in part &#8220;Wendy Bellissimo Media, Inc.&#8221; and lists Item numbers 3937500H7 and 3937501H7.</p>
<p>Infantino LLC sold the slings in the United States and Canada from January 2003 through March 2010 at Walmart, Burlington Coat Factory, Target, Babies “R” Us, BJ’s Wholesale, various baby and children’s stores and other retailers nationwide, and on the Web at Amazon.com, for between $25 and $30.</p>
<p>The product was manufactured in China and Thailand.</p>
<p>Consumers should stop using the recalled slings immediately and contact Infantino to receive a free replacement product, with a choice of a Wrap &amp; Tie infant carrier, or a 2 in 1 Shopping Cart Cover, or a 3 in 1 Grow &amp; Play Activity Gym. A Jittery Pals Rattle will also be provided. Contact Infantino toll-free at (866) 860-1361 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at <a href="http://www.infantino.com">www.infantino.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/03/24/baby-slings-recalled-after-3-infant-deaths/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Products Liability Laws Make Life Safer</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/03/09/products-liability-laws-make-life-safer/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/03/09/products-liability-laws-make-life-safer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aviation Accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Poisoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baycol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bridgestone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cribs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dangerous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defective-drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firestone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food-poisoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[halcion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical-devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product-liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tylenol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsafe-products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vehicles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vioxx]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful-death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=3269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laws regulating liability for defective products and the trial lawyers who litigate to enforce them make life safer for all American consumers. Without these laws and the lawyers willing to take on the manufacturers of defective and unreasonably dangerous products, buying and using a wide range of products would, in essence, become a crapshoot for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Laws regulating liability for <a title="defective-products" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/consumer-protection-claims/" target="_blank">defective products </a>and the trial lawyers who litigate to enforce them make life safer for all American consumers. Without these laws and the lawyers willing to take on the manufacturers of defective and unreasonably dangerous products, buying and using a wide range of products would, in essence, become a crapshoot for unsuspecting consumers. Successful products liability litigation has resulted in safer products, better regulation, improved warnings, and greater public awareness of the issue. It has also helped change the way manufacturers do business and perhaps more importantly, how our government regulates these companies.</p>
<p>A review of past headlines illustrate the vast number of defective products that have caused a multitude of <a title="Personal-Injuries" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/personal-injury/" target="_self">injuries</a> and cost Americans dearly: Bridgestone and Firestone tires, <a title="Perscription-Drugs" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/pharmaceutical-litigation/" target="_blank">prescription drugs </a>Vioxx, Baycol and Halcion, dietary supplement ephedra, <a title="Medical-Devices" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/defective-medical-devices/" target="_blank">medical devices </a>like Guidant defibrillators, Medtronic pacemaker leads,and  Dalkon Shield; silicon breast implants, asbestos, and tobacco products just to name a few. Litigation has resulted in recalls of numerous products including Ford Pinto and Explorer, Chrysler minivans, baby cribs and strollers and infant car seats, children’s Tylenol, flammable clothing, birth control medication and devices, <a title="Food-Poisoning" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/foodborne-illness/" target="_blank">tainted food </a>products, and the most recent <a title="Toyota-Vehicle-Recall" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/toyota-recall-lawsuits/" target="_blank">Toyota vehicles </a>causing unintended acceleration just to name a few.</p>
<p>Aviation litigation has resulted in a drastic drop in the number of crashes and deaths involving <a title="Aircraft-Accidents" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/helicopter-accidents/" target="_blank">aircraft</a>. According to the Consumer Federation of America, there has been a dramatic change in the rate of <a title="Accidental-Deaths" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/wrongful-death/" target="_blank">accidental deaths</a> and injuries since the enactment of products liability laws and stiffer regulation. As a result they estimate that approximately 6,000 deaths and millions of injuries have been prevented on an annual basis.</p>
<p>People are powerless to protect themselves against defective products and the harm they cause without these laws and regulation, as well as the courageous attorneys willing to take on the manufacturers. Beware of the political hue and cry for so-called “tort reform” by business interests and insurance companies trying to gut these important safeguards. Those who support such disingenuous political initiatives just may end up being the victim of a dangerous product without legal recourse to compensate them for the resulting injuries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2010/03/09/products-liability-laws-make-life-safer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dangerous Baby Bassinets Recalled</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/10/05/dangerous-baby-bassinets-recalled/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/10/05/dangerous-baby-bassinets-recalled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bassinets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[graco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[simplicity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2810</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered a recall of over 900,000 bassinets manufactured by Simplicity Co. The recall came too late for the parents of two small children who died. This is the second recall involving Simplicity bassinets, following a 2008 recall after four infant deaths were linked to the the bassinets. Parents are urged [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/10/simplicity-bassinets-recalled.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2810];player=img;" title="simplicity-bassinets-recalled"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2811" style="margin-right: 10px;" title="simplicity-bassinets-recalled" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/10/simplicity-bassinets-recalled-350x338.jpg" alt="simplicity-bassinets-recalled" width="210" height="203" /></a>The Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered a recall of over 900,000 bassinets manufactured by Simplicity Co. The recall came too late for the parents of two small children who <a title="Wrongful Death" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/wrongful-death/" target="_blank">died</a>. This is the second recall involving Simplicity bassinets, following a 2008 recall after four infant deaths were linked to the the bassinets.</p>
<p>Parents are urged to immediately discontinue use of the convertible close-sleeper/bedside sleeper bassinets marketed as 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 convertible bassinets with the Graco logo and Winnie the Pooh motif following the strangling death of infants who got caught in the metal bars of the bassinets.</p>
<p>Simplicity Co. is no longer in business, but their potentially deadly baby products are still out there for unsuspecting consumers. Several major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us and Target have agreed to give store credit for the bassinets purchased from them. Parents should check their children’s bassinets immediately to make sure the bassinet they are using is safe. Better to be safe now than sorry later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/10/05/dangerous-baby-bassinets-recalled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lead Tainted Toys Are Not Ok</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/29/lead-tainted-toys-are-not-ok/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/29/lead-tainted-toys-are-not-ok/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dangerous-toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lead]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OKK Trading Co. agreed to penalties of $665,000 for knowingly importing and selling toys containing dangerous lead levels. The Consumer Product Safety Commission had filed complaints alleging violations of child safety standards and other federal laws by OKK. This is yet another example of the profits at any cost business model that is pervasive in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/consumer-product-safety-commission.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2758];player=img;" title="consumer-product-safety-commission"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2759" style="margin-right: 10px;" title="consumer-product-safety-commission" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/consumer-product-safety-commission-350x350.jpg" alt="consumer-product-safety-commission" width="210" height="210" /></a>OKK Trading Co. agreed to penalties of $665,000 for knowingly importing and selling toys containing dangerous lead levels. The Consumer Product Safety Commission had filed complaints alleging violations of child safety standards and other federal laws by OKK.</p>
<p>This is yet another example of the profits at any cost business model that is pervasive in our economy today. Companies that profit by knowingly evading safety laws, especially those designed to protect children, should face the stiffest civil penalties allowed by law and consumers should be better informed so they can boycott those companies. If they are driven only by profit the best place to hurt them is in their pocketbook.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/29/lead-tainted-toys-are-not-ok/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bicycle Chains And Chain Connector Links Recalled By Sram Due To Fall Hazard</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/09/bicycle-chains-and-chain-connector-links-recalled-by-sram-due-to-fall-hazard/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/09/bicycle-chains-and-chain-connector-links-recalled-by-sram-due-to-fall-hazard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:08:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Neblett Beard &#38; Arsenault</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bicycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[powerlock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sram]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall of 10 Speed SRAM Bicycle Chains with PowerLock connector links manufactured by SRAM LLC, of Chicago, Ill.  The products were recalled because the PowerLock connector links, used on bicycle chains, are brittle and can crack, allowing the chain to separate from the bicycle and posing a fall [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/sram-bicycle-part-recall.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2680];player=img;" title="sram-bicycle-part-recall"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2681" style="margin-right: 10px;" title="sram-bicycle-part-recall" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/sram-bicycle-part-recall-350x195.jpg" alt="sram-bicycle-part-recall" width="350" height="195" /></a>The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall of 10 Speed SRAM Bicycle Chains with PowerLock connector links manufactured by SRAM LLC, of Chicago, Ill.  The products were recalled because the PowerLock connector links, used on bicycle chains, are brittle and can crack, allowing the chain to separate from the bicycle and posing a fall hazard to the rider.  4 <a title="Personal Injury" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/personal-injury/" target="_blank">injuries</a> have been reported in connection with the recalled products.</p>
<p>The recall involves SRAM PowerLock connector links, which are sold individually, on 10-speed bicycle chains and as original equipment on some bicycles. The recalled PowerLock connector links are identified by a date code of M or N, which is located on the side of the PowerLock connector link. 10-speed SRAM chains that were equipped with recalled PowerLock connector links include the following chain model numbers: PC-1030, PC-1050, PC-1070, PC-1090 and PC-1090R. The recalled chains were also installed on some Guru, Surly, Salsa, BMC, Serotta, Seven, and Ridley brand complete bicycles. The individual PowerLock connectors and bike chains with these connectors were sold from January 2009 through August 2009; bicycles with affected chains were sold from April 2009 through August 2009.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/09/bicycle-chains-and-chain-connector-links-recalled-by-sram-due-to-fall-hazard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Office Max Chairs Recalled After Reports of Injuries</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/02/office-max-chairs-recalled-after-reports-of-injuries/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/02/office-max-chairs-recalled-after-reports-of-injuries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Neblett Beard &#38; Arsenault</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NBALawFirm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office-max]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rolling-chair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work-injury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2664</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Name of Product: Office Max Task Chairs Units: About 216,000 Importer: OfficeMax Inc., of Naperville, Ill. Hazard: The back and the base [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/office-max-chair-recall.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2664];player=img;" title="office-max-chair-recall"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2665" style="margin-right: 10px;" title="office-max-chair-recall" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/office-max-chair-recall-350x510.jpg" alt="office-max-chair-recall" width="350" height="510" /></a></p>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.</p>
<p>Name of Product: Office Max Task Chairs</p>
<p>Units: About 216,000</p>
<p>Importer: OfficeMax Inc., of Naperville, Ill.</p>
<p>Hazard: The back and the base post of the chair can break while in use, posing a fall hazard to consumers.</p>
<p>Incidents/Injuries: OfficeMax has received about 35 reports of the chair backs or posts breaking, including 15 reports of <strong><a title="Personal Injury" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/personal-injury/" target="_blank">injuries</a></strong> involving lacerations, muscle strains, contusions and concussions.</p>
<p>Description: The recall involves OfficeMax Task Chairs with model numbers OM182 and OM96614. The model number is located under the chair’s seat on a white UPC label. The chairs are charcoal or dark charcoal in color and have black plastic arms and a rolling plastic and metal base.</p>
<p>Sold at: OfficeMax stores nationwide, on the firm’s Web site, in OfficeMax catalogs, and through direct commercial sales to businesses from September 2003 through July 2008 for between $40 and $65.</p>
<p>Manufactured in: China</p>
<p>Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and return them to any OfficeMax store for a full refund or a $55 gift card if the consumer does not have a receipt.</p>
<p>Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact OfficeMax at (800) 283-7674 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at <strong><a title="Office Max Chair Recall" href="www.officemax.com?phpMyAdmin=8c4d42d3ddt7ddb8495" target="_blank">www.officemax.com</a></strong></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/09/02/office-max-chairs-recalled-after-reports-of-injuries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Frigidaire and Kenmore Smoothtop Electric Ranges Recalled Due to Fire Hazard</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/08/31/frigidaire-and-kenmore-smoothtop-electric-ranges-recalled-due-to-fire-hazard/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/08/31/frigidaire-and-kenmore-smoothtop-electric-ranges-recalled-due-to-fire-hazard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Neblett Beard &#38; Arsenault</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electrolux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frigidaire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kenmore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sears]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Frigidaire, a division of Electrolux Home Products Inc., announced the recall of 200,000 Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Smoothtop Electric Ranges. According to the CPSC, some models may have defective surface heating elements. Depending on the model, the surface heating elements can: 1) turn on spontaneously without being switched [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/08/frigidaire-kenmore-recall.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2657];player=img;" title="frigidaire-kenmore-recall"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2658" style="margin-right: 10px;" title="frigidaire-kenmore-recall" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/08/frigidaire-kenmore-recall-350x247.jpg" alt="frigidaire-kenmore-recall" width="350" height="247" /></a>The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Frigidaire, a division of Electrolux Home Products Inc., announced the recall of  200,000 Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Smoothtop Electric Ranges.  According to the CPSC, some models may have defective surface heating elements.  Depending on the model, the surface heating elements can: 1) turn on spontaneously without being switched on; 2) fail to turn off after being switched off; or, 3) heat to different temperatures than selected. This poses a fire and burn hazard to consumers.</p>
<p>This recall involves Frigidaire, Frigidaire Gallery, Frigidaire Professional and Kenmore Elite smoothtop electric ranges with rotary knobs and digital displays.  Frigidaire has received 126 reports of incidents, including four reports of <a title="Burn Injuries" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/burn-injuries/" target="_blank">minor burns</a> and two reports of minor property damage.</p>
<p>The models affects by the recall were sold at Sear&#8217;s and other retailers throughout the U.S. from June 2001 to August 2009 for between $1000 to $2000 dollars. Consumers should stop using the recalled ranges immediately and contact Frigidaire or Sears to schedule a free repair.</p>
<p><strong>Here is a list of the recalled products:</strong></p>
<p>Frigidaire (Serial Number Range VF122xxxxx &#8211; VF831xxxxx) and Models Beginning with</p>
<p>FEFBZ90GC<br />
FEFLMC55GC<br />
FEFLZ87GC	GLEF396AB<br />
GLEF396AQ<br />
GLEF396AS<br />
GLEF396CQ<br />
GLEF396CS</p>
<p>GLEFM397DB	GLEFM397DQ<br />
GLEFM397DS<br />
GLEFM97FPB<br />
GLEFM97FPW<br />
GLEFM97GPB<br />
GLEFM97GPW	LEEFM389FE	PLEF398AC<br />
PLEF398CC<br />
PLEF398DC<br />
PLEFM399DC	PLEFMZ99EC<br />
PLEFMZ99GC<br />
PLEFZ398EC<br />
PLEFZ398GC</p>
<p>Kenmore Elite (Serial Number Range VF122xxxxx – VF334xxxxx) and Models Beginning with<br />
790.99012	790.99013	790.99014	790.99019</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/08/31/frigidaire-and-kenmore-smoothtop-electric-ranges-recalled-due-to-fire-hazard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$2.3 Million Penalty Levied Against Mattel</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/06/09/23-million-penalty-levied-against-mattel/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/06/09/23-million-penalty-levied-against-mattel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dangerous-toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsafe-products]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mattel Inc. and its subsidiary Fisher-Price have agreed to a record $2.3 million civil penalty as part of a settlement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The giant toymaker knowingly violated a 30 year federal ban on lead paint in toys according to the CPSC. This penalty is the result of an investigation following the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/06/mattel-logo.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2366];player=img;" title="mattel-logo"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-2367" style="margin-right: 10px;" title="mattel-logo" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/06/mattel-logo.jpg" alt="mattel-logo" width="228" height="228" /></a>Mattel Inc. and its subsidiary Fisher-Price have agreed to a record $2.3 million civil penalty as part of a settlement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The giant toymaker knowingly violated a 30 year federal ban on lead paint in toys according to the CPSC. This penalty is the result of an investigation following the 2007 recall of nearly  2 million of the most popular children’s toys including Big Bird, Elmo and Dora the Explorer after tests showed <a title="Dangerous Products" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/consumer-protection-claims/">excessive amounts of lead</a> in the paint on the toys.</p>
<p>How did this get to be such a large problem for American consumers? Profit. The majority of toys purchased in the U.S. are made in China and paint with higher levels of lead often sells for a third of the cost of paint with low levels.</p>
<p>Lead poisoning is a serious threat to children’s health. After ingestion, lead enters the bloodstream and is absorbed and stored in various tissues and organs, including the liver, kidneys, brain, bones and teeth. High levels of lead causes many different symptoms and can affect almost every organ system of the body. The most common symptoms include vomiting, belly pain, headaches, muscle weakness, seizures, hair loss, confusion and anemia. Even lower lead levels can cause problems with attention, behavior, decrease in IQ and learning difficulties.</p>
<p>Parents who are concerned their children may have toxic leaded toys that made their way onto  American shelves can check for the photos and descriptions of recalled toys at http://www.cpsc.gov or call 1-800-638-2772.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/06/09/23-million-penalty-levied-against-mattel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should Injured Victims Have More Time To File Products Liability Actions?</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/31/should-injured-victims-have-more-time-to-file-products-liability-actions/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/31/should-injured-victims-have-more-time-to-file-products-liability-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 19:10:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsafe-products]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Each of the fifty states have statutes of limitations or periods in which an injured person has to file a lawsuit to recover for damages from a defective product. The applicable period of time varies from state to state, some are more restrictive and shorter than others. The rub comes in when the defect or [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/05/oregon.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2333];player=img;" title="oregon"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-2337" style="margin-right: 10px;" title="oregon" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/05/oregon.jpg" alt="oregon" width="360" height="216" /></a>Each of the fifty states have statutes of limitations or periods in which an injured person has to file a lawsuit to recover for damages from a <a title="Dangerous Products" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/consumer-protection/">defective product</a>. The applicable period of time varies from state to state, some are more restrictive and shorter than others. The rub comes in when the defect or the harm caused by that defect does not manifest itself until after the prescriptive period has run. Why should the innocent victim be treated differently or left without recourse just because of the state they live in when the products are marketed and sold nationwide?</p>
<p>The pros and cons of this issue was recently debated by the Oregon state senate. Their proposed bill would extend the legal prescription period in <a title="Product Liability Claim" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/consumer-protection-claims/">product liability claims</a> to 10 years from the date the product was purchased. An additional provision, perhaps more importantly, gives the victim the choice of applying the statute of limitations of the state where the product was manufactured.</p>
<p>The bill will now go to the Oregon House of Representatives for consideration.</p>
<p>Perhaps consumer advocates and concerned voters in each state should pressure their individual legislature to ensure that their citizens are not left holding the bag by a shorter and more restrictive statute of limitations than those of  their sister states.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/31/should-injured-victims-have-more-time-to-file-products-liability-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Juries Award Damages in Rollover Cases</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/29/juries-award-damages-in-rollover-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/29/juries-award-damages-in-rollover-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 13:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Auto Accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[car-wreck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defective-seat-belt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verdicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yamaha-rhino]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In March the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a repair program for Yamaha Rhino models after numerous complaints of rollover accidents resulting in serious injuries and death. The Rhino is the latest vehicle to be identified in multiple rollover accidents. Recently, a Los Angeles court ruled in favor of a California man who is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/03/justice-cropped1.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-2327];player=img;" title="justice-cropped1"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1731" title="justice-cropped1" src="http://nbalawblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/03/justice-cropped1.jpg" alt="justice-cropped1" width="284" height="265" /></a>In March the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a repair program for <a title="Yamaha Rhino Rollover" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/yamaha-rhino-utv-rollover/">Yamaha Rhino</a> models after numerous complaints of rollover accidents resulting in serious injuries and death. The Rhino is the latest vehicle to be identified in multiple rollover accidents.</p>
<p>Recently, a Los Angeles court ruled in favor of a California man who is left unable to move his arms or legs after a rollover <a title="Car Accidents" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/vehicle-accidents/">highway accident</a> involving a Land Rover Discovery sport utility vehicle. The court awarded $21.1 million in damages finding the vehicle’s high center of gravity made it prone to rollovers and it’s roof crushed too easily.</p>
<p>Also a federal jury ordered Ford to pay over $18 million in damages to a quadriplegic man who was injured when his passenger van rolled over after skidding off an icy highway. A <a title="Defective Seat Belt" href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/consumer-protection-claims/">defective</a> seat belt latch mechanism caused the man’s head to slam into the crushed roof.</p>
<p>In both cases the vehicle’s manufacturer blamed the driver and denied its designs were defective. Those arguments obviously did not prevail in either court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/29/juries-award-damages-in-rollover-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Panel Gets A New Chief</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/05/safety-panel-gets-a-new-chief/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/05/safety-panel-gets-a-new-chief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 16:32:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsafe-products]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=2227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama has nominated Inez Tenenbaum to lead the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (USCPSC). He also is expanding the panel and seeking additional funding for its budget. The president had promised in his campaign to make it a top priority of his administration to ensure that products Americans buy are safe. During the Bush [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Obama has nominated Inez Tenenbaum to lead the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (USCPSC). He also is expanding the panel and seeking additional funding for its budget. The president had promised in his campaign to make it a top priority of his administration to ensure that products Americans buy are safe.</p>
<p>During the Bush administration, the agency and especially its head Nancy Ford, had come under increasing criticism from Congress and consumer advocates, for the too-cozy relationship with the industry it supposedly regulated and lax regulation enforcement. Ford, a former lobbyist before being appointed by George Bush, admitted taking three overseas all expense-paid trips arranged by the toy industry. During Ford’s tenure millions of unsafe toys, cribs and other children’s products were sold in the U.S.</p>
<p>The USCPSC tests a wide range of over 15,000 products, including children’s toys, cribs, strollers, appliances and all-terrain vehicles. It has only 430 employees to do its work. President Obama’s new budget proposal  will increase the agency’s funding by nearly 70%. A new chief with the qualifications of Ms. Tenenbaum and an increase in funding will go a long way to ensure that products Americans buy every day will be safe to use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/05/05/safety-panel-gets-a-new-chief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Playtime for Kids Can Be Dangerous</title>
		<link>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/04/01/playtime-for-kids-can-be-dangerous/</link>
		<comments>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/04/01/playtime-for-kids-can-be-dangerous/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Bollinger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dangerous Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-products-safety-commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsafe-products]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nbalawblog.com/?p=1767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Choking and strangulation hazards, sharp edges, pinch points, toxic lead levels…who knew bringing toys home for our kids could put them in danger? The headlines have been filled with stories of imported Chinese toys made for big American toy sellers like Mattel, Hasbro, Fisher-Price and Playskool being recalled.  Defective and potentially dangerous infant rattles, carriers, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Choking and strangulation hazards, sharp edges, pinch points, toxic lead levels…who knew bringing toys home for our kids could put them in danger?  The headlines have been filled with stories of imported Chinese toys made for big American toy sellers like Mattel, Hasbro, Fisher-Price and Playskool being recalled.  Defective and potentially <a href="http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/practice-areas/law/consumer-protection/">dangerous</a> infant rattles, carriers, pacifiers and cribs, merry-go-rounds, play sets and stuffed animals have all been recalled in the past year.</p>
<p>The good news is that extensive press and media coverage and parental pressure on Congress has led to more scrutiny of imported toys as well as product design changes in many toy and children’s products.</p>
<p>The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (US CPSC) is entrusted with making sure the toys on the shelves in your community are tested and safe. They must police a $15 billion industry. The first line of defense is to make sure imports are meeting applicable safety standards before they are allowed in the country. The<br />
US CPSC must be adequately funded and staffed to carry out their mandate. Parents should always read the labels on toys to make sure the toy is age appropriate. Here is a <a title="Toy Safety" href="http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/grand/toy/toysafe.html">toy safety guide</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nbalawblog.com/2009/04/01/playtime-for-kids-can-be-dangerous/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

