Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

Every year during prom season, groups of local teenagers celebrate by flocking to the New Jersey shore and staying at seaside motels. As long as these teenage guests can pay for their rooms, they are welcomed with open arms. But, as parents well know, when teenagers party after their proms, there is a good chance they’ll include alcohol or other intoxicating substances in their party mix. There is also a good chance they’ll get hurt—especially if the motels they are staying in pose safety risks.

The warm months of May and June are not exclusive to prom season. They also mark the beginning of the tourist season at the Jersey shore. It is fair to say that many of the motels on the shore have not been very busy over the cold winter months, and are in need of repair, due to the ravages of storms and winter weather— especially this year, after the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Sandy.

The conjunction of prom season and tourist season is a valid concern for the parents of these shore-bound teenagers. Typically, prom-goers look for the cheapest possible motel deal, and end up staying in places where the quality of maintenance is not up to par, or in accordance with safety codes. As a father and a motel/hotel premise liability lawyer who specializes in balcony and railing falls, I worry—for myself, and for all parents of teenagers.

Every year, victims are left in critical condition, or die, after falling over balconies in seashore motels with defective balcony railings. Just last year, a real estate agent was showing a seashore motel property listed for sale, when he leaned against the railing and fell over backwards, suffering permanent catastrophic injuries. The beachfront motel on the Jersey shore where he fell was said to have had multiple safety violations.

Falls from hotel and motel balconies commonly occur during holidays or post-prom parties, and they are often fueled by intoxicating substances and unusual behavior. Despite the presence of alcohol, however, property owners are responsible for the safety of their premises. A fall from a balcony due to defective railings or deck surfaces can totally decimate a victim’s hopes and dreams, and those responsible must be held accountable. If you, your teenage child, or anyone else in your family, has been injured in this kind of accident, you must act immediately, and seek the counsel of an experienced premises liability lawyer.

The nationally recognized premise hotel/motel liability law firm of Reiff and Bily has well over three decades of experience successfully representing victims of slip and fall and balcony fall accidents. We know what can go wrong, and understand the modes of failure and safety code violations that lead to balcony and railing collapses. We have been recognized by our peers and outside third parties as being among the best and brightest, and have been listed as members the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by National Trial Lawyers.

On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that has far-reaching implications. This case will be closely watched by pharmaceutical companies, regulators, lawyers, and consumer safety advocates. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company—a manufacturer of numerous generic drugs—has asked the high court to overturn a $21 million dollar jury award to Karen Bartlett, a New Hampshire woman who took Mutual’s generic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac when it was prescribed by her doctor for shoulder pain, in 2004.

The plaintiff, Karen Bartlett, was diagnosed with a rare hypersensitivity reaction associated with the drug (Stevens-Johnson Syndrome toxic epidermal necrolysis), three weeks after she began taking it. Her skin began to peel off, and she was left with burn-like lesions over two-thirds of her body. She spent close to two months in a hospital burn unit, and some of that time was in a medically-induced coma. She has subsequently undergone 13 eye surgeries. She sued Mutual in 2008 for alleged design defects, under New Hampshire law, and was awarded $21 million dollars for injuries. Mutual is now attempting to argue that Federal law bars this claim because the drug had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company also contends that it had no control over the drug’s design or labeling.

As a Pennsylvania product liability and product defect lawyer, I am greatly concerned about the safety implications of defective drugs and medical devices. I believe that the risks of the drug involved in this case outweighed its benefits, thereby making it unreasonably dangerous to others.

There are currently 17 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the market that do not have the high risk of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with Sulindac. Of these, 10 are equally effective, as the lower courts concurred, when Karen Bartlett was awarded $21 million dollars for injuries that will require a lifetime of care.

I do not feel that there should be a difference in legal standards applicable to generic drugs and brand name drugs. All manufacturers must be held responsible for the design and safety of their drugs, at all times. Pharmaceutical manufacturers will always argue that, since the drug or device had been approved by the FDA, the product is safe, and that Federal law preempts state law. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
For this reason, the FDA requires warning labels to be constantly updated, and has recommended that certain drugs and devices be withdrawn from the market for being unsafe, as in the cases of Darvocet, Bextra, DePuy hips, and Sprint Fedilis defibrillator leads. Bextra is another good example of a NSAID that was removed from the market for its high risk of triggering Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

Suits like Karen’s may be one of the only effective ways that society can police the promulgation and dissemination of new safety information. Jury verdicts on behalf of injured individuals send a message to corporations that manufacturing dangerous products—including unreasonably dangerous drugs—is unacceptable, and that such products should be withdrawn from the market.

In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States asserted in the famous Wyeth v. Levine case that “state tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly. They also serve a direct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information.” Failure-to-warn actions, in particular, lend force to the FDA’s premise that manufacturers, not the FDA, bear primary responsibility for their drug labeling, at all times. Thus, the FDA has long maintained that state law offers an additional, and extremely important, layer of consumer protection that complements FDA regulation.

I believe that the safety of consumers must never be trumped by the profitability concerns of corporate America and its powerful lobbyists.

When someone gets injured on another’s property—whether it be a business, public, or residential site—the stakes can be very high, especially when the property owner is deemed negligent and the victim is seriously hurt. A property owner has an obligation to keep the premises in safe condition and free of hazards. But, all too often, balconies and railings are overlooked. Given that falls from balconies are generally quite serious, and often lead to catastrophic injuries, the awards for such premises liability cases can be very high indeed.

Recently, a 25-year old motel guest fell 12 feet from the balcony of a second story motel room, while a guest at the motel. The victim contended that the motel maintained the property in a negligent fashion, and that the railing was dangerously low—in violation of the building code. The defense denied that the victim was a motel guest, and presented expert testimony that his injuries were consistent with a ground-level backwards fall. The defense also argued that the victim’s blood alcohol level was .267 at the time of the accident. The plaintiff presented evidence that his mother had come to the motel the day after the accident, and retrieved his personal belongings—which, he alleged, proved that he was a guest at the motel. The plaintiff admitted that he had been intoxicated at the time, had struggled with alcoholism, and was partly responsible for the fall. However, his attorneys argued that this did not excuse the motel’s non-compliance with the building code.

As a result of the fall, the plaintiff was severely injured. He was diagnosed with four skull fractures and a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and had to be placed in a coma for three weeks to be treated for brain swelling and internal bleeding. He sustained brain tissue death, resulting in traumatic dementia. Though he is able to speak, and can understand and process visual information, he has trouble responding, owing to extreme anxiety. He has difficulty planning, and suffers from problems with memory, concentration, and behavior control.

The victim was awarded an extremely large settlement—38 million dollars—owing to the fact that the owner had failed to correct a serious safety hazard, and to fulfill his duty of care to a hotel guest. It is always a property owner’s obligation to keep his premises in a safe condition.

If you or a loved one has been injured from a slip or fall caused by the inadequate safety of someone else’s property, you should contact a premises liability attorney with specialized expertise and a track record of achieving large settlements in such cases. Moreover, you should do so immediately, in order to preserve vitally important evidence.

Jeffrey Reiff has decades of experience as a premises liability attorney, and is a contributing member of the National Brain Injury Trial Lawyers Association. He has consistently been named one of the Top Attorneys in Pennsylvania by Super Lawyers, and has been recognized by National Trial Lawyers as a member of the Top100 Trial Lawyers. He has also been nominated as one of the Top 100 Attorneys in Pennsylvania.

Each year, auto makers and truck manufacturers proudly promote the latest technological features of their new models, boasting about how they create smoother, more efficient rides, improved comfort, and enhanced entertainment capabilities. But, as we all know, new electronic technology is prone to glitches, and, in a car, this is serious business. When an electronic feature in an automobile fails, the consequences can be deadly.

Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced the investigation of stalling or surging engines in nearly 725,000 Ford cars and SUVs. This probe applies to all Ford Escapes, Ford Fusions, Mercury Milans, and Mercury Mariner SUVs manufactured between 2009 and 2011. To attest to the seriousness of the problem, these faulty vehicles are nearly identical to the models Ford and Mercury scrapped in 2010.

It is alleged that these vehicles can be triggered into a “limp home mode,” and suddenly start operating at reduced power. This is a rather dangerous propensity in a car. Yet, despite the fact that the NHTSA and Ford have received almost 1,500 complaints about the problem, these cars have not been recalled.

In addition, Ford has indicated to the NHTSA that vehicles made from June 22, 2009 to October 15, 2009 may have been produced with faulty circuit boards controlling the throttle. The circuit boards in question were supplied by the Delphi Corporation. Ford and Delphi claim that they changed the circuit board manufacturing process after October 15, 2009. And, according to NHTSA and Ford spokespeople, this change solved the problem. But, in truth, it is unlikely that such a serious defect was corrected so definitively.

As these facts suggest, faulty electrical mechanisms in cars are not always addressed in as timely a manner as they should be. And, clearly, if defective cars are not recalled, they can cause serious accidents. When faulty automobile components contribute to an accident, the issue of auto product liability comes into play. Automobile manufacturers can be held accountable for the injuries—or deaths—that result.

Victims and family members of such accidents are eligible to file an auto product liability lawsuit against the car manufacturer in question. Though a lawsuit cannot begin to make up for the trauma and emotional impact of an accident, it can cover the high costs of medical care, rehabilitation, long-term care, lost wages , and—in the case of a death—loss of consortium. Fighting an automobile manufacturer requires an experienced lawyer, with special expertise and a track record of success in handling such cases. The stakes in this kind of lawsuit are high, as auto manufacturers will go to great lengths to deny fault, and impede fair settlement.

The Philadelphia auto product liability and car accident lawyers of Reiff and Bily have over 34 years of experience representing victims and their families who were catastrophically injured or killed as a result of an automobile defect. Our lawyers have been recognized as among the top lawyers in the United States. They are members of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers, and have been noted by their peers to have the highest possible rating in both legal abilities and ethical standards. Reiff and Bily always offers a free, no obligation consultation. Call their toll free number, 1-800-421-9595.

In recent years, our law firm has investigated a number of cases where airbags were deployed with inordinate force, causing more harm than the accidents they were meant to protect against. In other cases, airbags were deployed inadvertently, when there was no accident at all. In yet others, the pressure of an airbag was so extreme that it caused the steering wheel to explode, hurling shrapnel-like fragments into drivers and passengers.

Clearly, a properly designed airbag is meant to protect—not cause injury or death. But, airbags are becoming more and more dangerous. Many of the newer airbag systems have complex, multi-force inflators, and feature sequential inflation, utilizing technology that is potentially deadly.

When an airbag deploys in an overly-aggressive fashion, it intrudes too far into the space of the occupant, at a force and velocity that is extremely dangerous. It can cause injuries far more serious than simple lacerations, contusions, and broken bones. It can cause blindness, brain damage, hearing loss, and permanent disfigurement—even death by decapitation.

A large percentage of airbags today are manufactured and supplied to auto makers by Takata, a major supplier of airbags and seat belts, both nationally and internationally. Recently, both Honda and Takata were sued, after a mother of three, involved in a minor fender bender, died when an airbag exploded in her face, lacerating the left side of her neck, and severing her arteries. Tragically, the young mother bled to death in front of her children.

Honda has recalled millions of vehicles since 2008 because of faulty airbags. The latest recall involves the Pilot crossover vehicle from model years 2009 to 2013, and Odyssey minivans from years 2009 to 2013.

But Honda is not alone. Chrysler recently recalled 919,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Liberty SUVs produced in model years 2002 and 2003. Last July, Hyundai recalled 220,000 Sonata sedans and San Fe SUVs from model years 2007 to 2009. And Ford recently announced a recall of 154,000 Fiesta models. All of these recalls involved defective airbags.

If you have problems with any of these vehicles, you should contact your local dealer immediately. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which has made the discovery and resolution of airbag problems a top priority, maintains an auto safety hotline, as well. Its number is 888-327-4236.

Defective airbags are among the most commonly cited defective products in suits involving catastrophic injuries and death. But, although there are newer and safer designs available, many manufacturers still continue to put their bottom line ahead of safety considerations.

Our airbag and product defect lawyers understand that safety should never be an option. The lawyers at Reiff and Bily have received the highest possible peer review ratings in legal ability and ethical standards, and have been recognized as the Top 100 Attorneys in Philadelphia and Top Attorneys in the Northeast. We always offer a free, no obligation consultation for those involved in motor vehicle accidents, and for those who have sustained injuries resulting from airbag defects.