Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

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.

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.

Many people are injured each year while taking down the decorations from their Christmas tree—simply because they failed to check the safety of their ladder, or to find out if it had been recalled.

Recently, a number of ladders and step-stools, sold exclusively at Home Depot, and online at homedepot.com, were recalled. These items, imported by Wing Enterprises of Springville, Utah, were manufactured in China by the Suzhou Zhong Chaung Aluminum Products Company. According to the recall notice, when the ladder is extended, the inner side rails can separate from the outer side rails, posing a fall hazard for the user. Wing Enterprises received nine reports of the ladder becoming unstable, causing users to fall, and sustain injuries ranging from scrapes and contusions to a fractured collarbone.

Common sense dictates that working on a ladder that is defective—owing to poor design or a manufacturing defect—is not safe. It can lead to catastrophic injuries to the brain, back, and spinal cord, or to paralysis or even death.

Before you climb a ladder, inspect it to make sure that the frame is not cracked or warped, and that its feet are in proper condition, and not damaged. Uneven ladder feet, a loose wrung, or corroded components may render the ladder too weak to support you, which can lead to a catastrophic fall.

If, in fact, you or a loved one has fallen from a defective ladder, be sure to carefully preserve the damaged ladder—to avoid spoliation of evidence—and have it promptly inspected by an experienced product liability expert who is thoroughly familiar with defective ladders. Victims of ladder falls and their families can seek financial compensation if it is proven that the ladder was defective, and caused the injury.

This holiday season, be smart—and exercise caution, to ensure that your holiday ends joyfully.

A Texas jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff after a car was taken to a Wal-Mart store for a 15 point service inspection including oil change, tire inspection, and overall vehicle inspection after which the vehicle hydroplaned as a result of worn tires. According to news sources, investigators found that the pickup truck's bald tires had contributed to the fatal wreck even though they were examined 3 1/2 months earlier during an overall inspection and not found to be a hazard. The jurors found that the retailer was negligent by failing to perform reasonable care when examining the pickup which in turn increased the risk of harm to its occupants.

The fatal hydroplaning accident occurred approximately 3 1/2 months and 4,900 miles after the vehicle inspection. The family and Estate of Justin M. Flores sued the Wal-Mart stores on a negligence theory alleging that Wal-Mart and its employees were negligent in their inspection and improperly determined and advised plaintiffs that the tires on the vehicle were in safe condition and need not be replaced even though they were allegedly in need of replacement due to uneven wear and low tread.

Continue reading "Jury Rules against Wal-Mart after Plaintiffs Allege Inadequate Vehicle and Tire Inspection Procedures" »

Corporate defendants and their lawyers are well schooled on how to present their own “show time” versions of how accidents happen. Immediately after an accident, many corporate defendants, trucking companies, and common carriers such as bus companies will have their drivers or representatives sit down with police or other officials to give their own exculpatory versions of how the accident happened.

Without eye witnesses and careful accident re-constructionists, skilled defense attorneys and corporate representatives may even be able to convincingly portray that their version is the only way the accident could have happened. Many naïve lawyers and jurors may succumb to their convincing dog and pony portrayal of liability.

Continue reading "Importance of Non-Spoliation Letter in Product Liability or Catastrophic Accident Case" »

Every year millions of potentially dangerous toys will be sold in the United States and throughout the world. Recently the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Deputy Commissioner announced that millions of dangerous or violative toys and children’s products were seized in 2012 and prevented from reaching the hands of children. While we salute the efforts of these Federal agencies, it is important to understand that close to 10 million units of approximately 2,400 toys present safety hazards as they fail to meet federal safety standards.

When purchasing toys for children, safety should always remain the number one priority and even the most innocent looking toys, such as a stuffed animal, may present itself with some of the most unsuspecting danger in the forms of buttons, eyes, or other elements that may self-detach and cause choking of an infant or toddler.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania Child Safety Lawyer Urges Parents to Be Diligent when Purchasing Toys for Christmas" »

I recently wrote a blog concerning safety and the age of tires and today was pleased to learn that General Motors has decided to add a tire age warning to the 2012 Owner’s Manuals for their U.S. models. It simply states “The rubber and tires age over time. This also applies to a spare tire if the vehicle has one, even if it is never used.” Multiple factors including temperatures, loading conditions, and inflation pressure, and maintenance affect has fast aging takes place.

GM recommends that tires, including the spare, be replaced after six years regardless of tread wear. The tire manufacturer date is the last four digits of the DOT tire identification number (TIN) which is molded into one side of the tire sidewall. The first two digits represent the week (01-52) and the last two digits the year. For example the third week of the year 2010 would have a four digit DOT date of 03-10.

Continue reading "General Motors Warns Consumers about Age of Tires and Safety Concerns" »

My wife is a health freak and although I am not, I am learning to live by her nutritional guidance as the fear of age and illness becomes more defined. Quite simply, if you look at the labels of many of the food products we ingest, it is nothing more than a conglomeration of chemicals intended to fool us that we are eating something else by virtue of its familiar flavor.

Recently I went to the movies and after purchasing popcorn saw what appeared to be a fountain-like device that allowed customers to administer as much “butter” on their popcorn as they wanted. Interestingly enough, as an experienced product liability attorney who has spent the last three decades fighting on behalf of injured consumers, I knew in fact that this was not butter and thought about the potential health hazards.

Continue reading "When You Put Butter on Your Popcorn at The Movie Theater, Is it Really Butter or Just a Compound of Chemicals that Exposes You to Unnecessary Harm or Danger?" »

In my home, I was often yelled at by my wife or kids for failing to turn off the burner on our stovetop. This has happened unfortunately on more than one occasion. What I recently learned is that I wasn’t always as forgetful as I seemed.

Recently, a number of electronic ranges were recalled for fire and burn hazards after discovery that the burners on the top of the range can fail to turn off after being placed in the off position and that the temperature can also increase unexpectedly during use.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and LG Electronics have voluntarily recalled approximately 161,000 LG electric ranges for burns and fire hazards that the allegedly defective product poses. The recall announcement of November 8, 2012 indicates that the burners on the electric range can fail to turn off after being placed in the off position.

Continue reading "During the Holiday Season or Any Other Day for that Matter, Make Sure Your Stovetop or Oven Does Not Fail to Turn Off as There Was Just a Significant Product Defect Recall" »

Some of the most catastrophic and deadly injuries have occurred as a result of stoves tipping over, crushing and burning young children in its path. Most free standing, slide in, and drop in ranges manufactured since the fall of 1988 included an anti-tip device which is essential to the safe operation of the product.

The anti-tip bracket provides protection when excess force or weight is applied to an open oven door that is typically not used on high low ranges. Many times, accidental deaths and severe burn injuries occur when the brackets are not correctly installed or not installed at all.

Stove manufacturers and the government have been aware of stove tip over accidents for at least five decades. Many times retail installers or custom installers fail to properly affix the anti-tip brackets and according to an industry survey, anti-tip brackets are not being installed close to 90% of the time - simply an accident waiting to happen.

Continue reading "Does Your Stove or Range Have Anti-Tip Protection?" »

At least four to five times a week I exercise on what is supposed to be a “burst resisting” stability ball. I really never gave a second thought to the ball bursting since it was advertised as burst proof. However, in my day and evening job as an experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyer, I came across a case where an exercise ball burst during a training session causing a 29-year old professional athlete to sustain a fractured right wrist and dislocation of the distal radial ulnar joint.

The injuries were so severe that the victim had to undergo a surgical open reduction internal fixation procedure which included the implantation of a metal plate and hardware. The victim was unable to participate in his usual sporting activities as a member of a professional basketball team and he filed a lawsuit based upon strict liability and negligence and breach of warranty claims against the ball’s manufacturer.

Continue reading "Many of Us Use Exercise Balls in our Fitness Regimes, But What Happens When They Burst? " »

On numerous visits to the New Jersey seashore over the last week, post-Hurricane Sandy, you could hear the din and smell the fumes from many portable generators being used by storm victims.

Unfortunately, our law firm is aware of a number of situations where one tragedy is compounded with another tragedy due to carbon monoxide poisoning or fires.

Recently, Champion Power Equipment recalled portable generators sold at Costco from December 2011 to July 2012 due to the fact that fuel leaking from the generator’s carburetor was posing a fire hazard. The recall involves two models of Champion Power Equipment Portable Generators Model 41332 (which has an open frame) and the words “Champion Power Equipment” is noted on the control panel as well as 8,250 starting watts and 6,500 running watts on the side of the fuel tank. Model 41532 also has side panels that cover the long sides of the fuel tank. The words “Champion Power Equipment” are on the side panel by the control panel and “9000 starting watts” and “7,000 running watts” on the control panel.

Continue reading "As Many Victims of Hurricane Sandy Turn to Portable Generators for Assistance, Beware of Fires and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Particularly from Recalled Generators" »

Over the last three decades, our law firm has investigated many claims involving a tire failure. Many times a tire defect may exist in a new tire but also hazards are often presented when a tire fails and is improperly repaired.

Believe it or not, many well-known tire stores, as well as local gas stations, do not understand how to properly and safely repair and patch a failed tire. In a recent case that our tire defect lawyers successfully resolved, a catastrophic accident occurred just 15 minutes after a tire repair. The Rubber Manufacturers Association, other industry groups, and tire manufacturers publish a set of standards for inspecting and repairing tires. Unfortunately, many repair shops patch or plug tires when a puncture or defect has occurred in an area of the tire that should have never been repaired in the first place. Typically a puncture should only be repaired if it is in the tread area of the tire rather than a sidewall or bead area. In most tires, the repairable puncture cannot exceed a ¼ “.

Continue reading "A Low Cost Tire Repair Involving a Patch or a Plug May Be More Harmful than You Think, Advises Experienced Tire Defect Lawyer" »

The DePuy ASR hip replacement system was described in marketing literature as “high performance metal upon metal bearings” which touted reduced wear as one of the product’s main benefits over competing products. Unfortunately, many individuals who received implants of the DePuy ASR hip replacement device suffered significant injury and problems when the acetabular components failed to properly affix to the patient’s bones and the implants generated excessive metal debris resulting oftentimes in pain and burning in the hips and surrounding areas of recipients.

Many of the defective DePuy ASR implant patients were required to have a secondary revision surgery to remove the implants due to immune reactions to metal debris or shavings in the body resulting from the metal upon metal bearings. Some of the symptoms experienced by DePuy implant patients included abnormal fluid and necrotic tissue as well as infected bones secondary to matalosis, a disease that destroys tissue surrounding the artificial joint. Many individuals sustained foreign body reactions reducing an extraordinary amount of pain.

Continue reading "DePuy Now Settling Claims and Lawsuits for Those Who Sustained Injuries as a Result of Metal Upon Metal Hip System Implants" »

Each year, approximately 30 to 35 million used tires are sold in the United States. With many companies and individuals in tight economic straits, the number of used tires being purchased is climbing at a dramatic rate. Unfortunately, what many people do not understand is that used tires may present many dangers in the form of latent or hidden defects.

As a tire defect accident lawyer, I am well aware of the fact that tires must be stored and maintained properly, otherwise they can accumulate microscopic cracks and dry rot that is not seen by the human eye. Many times the tread on used tires is beneath the legal limit or they are recycled utilizing deceptive techniques to conceal visual defects, such as coating them to make them look new.

Unfortunately, many times used tire dealers are more concerned with their bottom line profitability over the safety of their consumers. Many times used tire dealers do not receive or are not compliant with a manufacturer’s technical service bulletins or recall notices because they are not authorized and certified new tire dealers. Many times used tires are defectively patched which can lead to a blowout resulting in a loss of stability in a high center of gravity vehicle, causing a catastrophic rollover accident.

Continue reading "Auto Defect Lawyer Weighs In On Catastrophic Accidents Caused By Used and Defective Tires" »

In a recent product liability case, a 60-year-old machinist was operating an edge banding machine at his employer’s cabinetry shop. The machine has an interlock device that was designed to shut off power when the hood was raised but the safety switch had been bypassed. As a result, the machine continued running and the saw blades continued rotating when the hood was raised.

The only way to safely avoid an accident was if the user remembered to manually turn off the blades using the switch on the front of the machine. The worker forgot to turn off the saw blades on one of the trimming units and the rotating blades contacted the fingers on his non-dominant hand, causing traumatic amputation of his middle, ring, and pinky fingers and partial amputation of his thumb. The worker was permanently disabled.

Continue reading "What Happens When a Worker Sustains an Amputation Injury While Operating Improperly Guarded Machinery at His Workplace?" »

A 28-year-old man rented a Bobcat Skid Steer Loader to clear an area of his parent’s property. When he was operating the tractor in a wooded area, a branch became lodged under the loader’s bucket and entered the cab below the safety bar that restrains the operator. The branch struck the operator in the lower abdomen and lifted his body towards the roof in the rear of the cabin crushing him to death.

His Estate sued the manufacturer and distributor of the machine alleging design defects and failure to warn claims contending that the manufacturer and distributor was aware that the machine was going into the rental market where it might be used by people outside the construction trade with knowledge of the dangers of front end cab penetration.

Continue reading "Design Defect and Failure to Warn Allegations Made by Claimant against Manufacturers and Distributors of Bobcat Skid Steer Loader Resulting in Verdict for Victim" »

Recently, the skilled airbag defect lawyers in Philadelphia of Reiff & Bily were successful in resolving a claim against a major automobile manufacturer when a frontal airbag deployed in a low impact accident below the 8 mph EEV “no fire” threshold. Unfortunately, due to the airbag failure defect, the plaintiff lost her vision. Within the last year, many of the major automobile manufacturers have issued warnings and recalls concerning airbag defects and component failures.

Automatic airbag systems are very complex. All it takes is a defective airbag sensor to result in an airbag failing to deploy, deploying too early, deploying too late, deploying over aggressively, or deploying inadvertently when there is not a crash. Typically, airbag sensory defects and injuries are caused by inadequate deployment threshold, electrical issues, poor sensor placement, installation of too few sensors, improper use of tethers to make sure airbags do not reach too far, as well as improper consumer warnings or failure to warn of no danger. Many times the pre-tensioner will not deploy.

Continue reading "The Non-Deployment or Inadvertent Deployment of an Airbag Often Leads To Catastrophic Consequences, Advises Airbag Safety Advocate" »

Thanks to the efforts of committed product liability trial lawyers and increased government regulation, manufacturers and retailers are becoming more tuned in to the existence of defective products which may cause catastrophic injuries and, unfortunately, wrongful death.

Almost daily, a number of recalls are published, and some critics claim that consumers are experiencing “recall fatigue”. Over the past year, there has been a spike in food product recalls. In the last quarter of 2011, there were 176 food product recalls by over 150 companies. Last year, there were over 2,365 defective products recalled from pharmaceutical products to infant toys and chairs.

As an experienced Pennsylvania product liability attorney who has handled cases of death and serious injury for over three decades, I do not believe there is ever such a thing as “recall fatigue” as consumers must always have a right to know if there is a problem or defect regarding a particular product. Thank God, we live in an age of increased technology where it is easy to disseminate a message of a consumer recall for a potentially dangerous product. The federal government is also more involved with recalls of consumer products and operates a website http://recalls.gov as a single unified website. The USDA also offers consumers a twitter feed that will make recalls instantaneous. With the increased use of social media, including, but not limited to, Facebook, consumers and social networkers now increasingly take it upon themselves to provide a constant flood of dangerous product and recall information.

Historically, manufacturers seem to emphasize profitability rather than consumer safety and with increased monitoring by the government, as well as product liability lawyers, manufacturers can be held responsible if they fail to enhance the safety of their products in the field and may be subject to fines or lawsuits and even the ultimate blow to profitability, punitive damages.

Every year in America, unsafe products will cause approximately 30,000 deaths and even more injuries. Even after a recall when the manufacturer discovers the danger of the product, there may be additional legal liability. If a manufacturer intentionally conceals information and does a poor job of providing notice of a dangerous product in Pennsylvania or anywhere else in the United States, they may be subjected to additional damages, including punitive damages.

Each product liability case is unique and requires a careful evaluation to determine what entities may bear legal responsibility for the accident, injury, or death and in the case of a recall, all those in the product distribution chain may be held accountable including but not limited to distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. It is important if you were involved in an accident caused by a defective product or one that has been recalled to contact an experienced product liability lawyer who possesses the expertise to investigate and trace the chain of design, supply, and distribution.

The experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily understand that profitability should never trump consumer safety and always offer a free, no obligation consultation to those injured or killed due to the use of a defective or recalled product. Our lawyers have been recognized as The Top 100 Trial Lawyers by National Trial Lawyers and have been consistently selected for inclusion as Super Lawyers® from 2007 through 2012 and have also been named Top Northeast Attorneys, Top Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Attorneys. Contact us toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.