Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

Physically unharmed plaintiffs may still collect emotional distress damages in strict product liability cases the Pennsylvania Superior has ruled in a case of first impression. A three judge panel voted 2 to 1, with Judge Orie Melvin concurring and dissenting, to uphold a $4.5 million dollar jury verdict in favor of two people, one of whom was killed and the other was seriously injured by a flying fire hose and to three close relatives who witnessed the accident but sustained no physical injury. Defendants argued that Pennsylvania law does not recognize awards for emotional distress under a theory of strict liability and also argued that under Pennsylvania law negligent concepts are “distinct from the product liability doctrine”.

A majority in Schmidt v. Boardman, led by Judge Cheryl Allan, called those arguments meritless. “We conclude that in Pennsylvania, a bystander-plaintiff who witnesses injury to a close relative can recover emotional distress damages when the injured person’s underlying cause of action is based on strict product liability rather than negligence” wrote Judge Cheryl Allan. Judge Allan was joined by John T. Bender. Attorney Arnd N. von Waldow of Reed, Smith in Pittsburgh, who was handling the appeal for defendant-manufacturer, said that he and his clients were planning to appeal the ruling and that this decision will not be the last word. For information on this case and the ruling, please see Schmidt v. Boardman Company, 2008 PA Super 203 (Pa.Super.CT. 9/2/2008). (opinion)

Continue reading "EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES OKAYED IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES SAYS THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE SUPERIOR COURT IN A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Catastrophic loss , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

According the Wall Street Journal, Federal Regulators have turned to retailers to conduct two huge recalls of potentially dangerous cribs and bassinets. This is an unusual request highlighting gaps in a recall system based on voluntary action by manufacturers and has lead all marked stores and other retailers to get tough with a Reading, Pennsylvania company. According the Wall Street Journal, recalls of the Simplicity brand of children products from last month of 900,000 convertible bassinets and another on Wednesday of 600,000 cribs have saddled retailers with headaches and expenses and halting product sales and issuing customer refunds. Many retailers are seeking compensation from the new owner of the Simplicity brand, SFCA, Inc. of Reading, PA, which bought the assets and brand of Simplicity Inc. at a public auction in April, after the company went out of business the month before. SFCA says it is not liable for products made before the acquisition and has refused to conduct a recall of the defective goods which have been linked to several infant deaths. SFCA still argues that although it is not liable for the recalled products, it says “it values its good relationship with its retail customers” and is “working in close cooperation with retailers to help facilitate all aspects of the recall”. Initially after removing all Simplicity bassinets from its 3,500 stores and its website, WalMart said it has returned to its store shelves the models deemed safe and still carries Simplicity products that are made by the defunct manufacturer. For more information on this story, please link to the Wall Street Journal article. (Wall Street Journal article)

Continue reading "FEDERAL REGULATORS HAVE TURNED TO RETAILERS TO CONDUCT TWO HUGE RECALLS OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CRIBS AND BASSINETS - RETAILERS ARE SEEKING COMPENSATION FROM A READING, PA COMPANY - PHILADELPHIA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAWYER, JEFFREY REIFF, EXPLORES LOOPHOLE" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Catastrophic loss , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

PHILADELPHIA DEFECTIVE CHILD SEAT ATTORNEY ADVISES PARENTS ON OTHER POTENTIAL SEAT DEFECTS AND HOW TO FURTHER PROTECT YOUR CHILD.

Over an 8 year period from 1999 to 2007 researchers noted that overall child restraint use increased from 51% to 81% in children younger than 9. During the same period, age appropriate restraint use, including booster seats among children 4 to 8 years old quadrupled from 15% in 1999 to 63% in 2007. Research indicates that for 4 to 8 year-olds booster seat and proper child seat usage reduces the risk of injury in a crash by 59%. Booster seats elevate a child’s small body to insure proper seat belt fit, better protecting them in the case of a crash. Kristy Arbogast, Ph.D., the Director of Engineering at The CHOP Center for Injury Research and Prevention where a long-term study was conducted stated “Along with the increase we see in the number of kids riding in child restraints, we can also see changes in the types of restraints they are using now versus 10 years ago. More 4 and 5-year olds are riding in booster seats now, rather than car seats with built in harnesses, with slightly more of them in high back booster seats than backless. But among the 6 through 8 year olds, backless booster seats are far more prevalent than high back booster seats”.

When you place your child or infant in a safety seat, you expect and trust the manufacturer has designed a safe seat that will protect your child in the case of an accident. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Once again, often we find that many manufacturers place profits over safety and design child safety seats according to Federal standards, which are really minimum standards. Often there are design defects that are not revealed during testing and many times, testing is not done or when it is done is done under real world conditions testing of the seats. Effectively designed child seats have lead to many injuries and deaths which were easily preventable. When the child’s seat does not operate properly, its ineffectiveness can be more dangerous than failing to use the seat itself in that it can cause additional injuries for the child or fail to protect the child from serious harm or death.

Continue reading "CHILD BOOSTER SEAT AND RESTRAINT USE IN THE UNITED STATES IS HIGHER THAN EVER ACCORDING TO A REPORT RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 BY CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA (CHOP) AND THE ASSOCIATION FOR AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS (AIAM)" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accident , Catastrophic loss , Child Safety Seats , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Pennsylvania Product Liability Lawyer Filing Lawsuits Against Foreign Manufacturers Whose Products Injure Local People
by Raymond M. Bily, Esquire

Foreign manufacturers of defective products can be sued in state or federal courts but doing so sometimes presents special challenges. Foreign auto makers, industrial product manufacturers, and consumer product makers and their intermediaries are not beyond the reach of U.S. courts if they put defective products into the stream of commerce. A manufacturer who has offices or advertises in a state generally has sufficient contact to be sued in state courts. Less clear is when a product is manufactured overseas and comes into a state indirectly. Courts generally inquire whether the manufacturer had some knowledge or expectation that the product would be purchased by consumers in the particular state.

Assuming jurisdiction is proper, a more difficult problem can involve service of process. Foreign corporations are savvy litigants. They understand that mere distance alone can be used to create the perception that injured consumers will have a very difficult time pursuing them in U.S. courts.

Continue reading "Filing Lawsuits Against Foreign Manufacturers" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accident , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

The dictionary defines "hope" as the belief in a positive outcome relating to the events and circumstances in one's life. Hope implies a certain amount of despair; wanting, wishing, suffering or perseverance, believing that a better or positive outcome is possible even when there is some evidence leading to the contrary.

The term "false hope" refers to hope highly based on fantasy or an extremely unlikely outcome.

At the law firm of Reiff and Bily, our lawyers understand and respect the value of hope. It is our job to communicate the plaintiffs dreams and hopes to the insurance companies and ultimately to the juries who hear our cases. It is our job to prove that what the plaintiff is capable of doing or was capable of doing prior to an incident and identify the compensation necessary for the plaintiff to recognize the fulfillment of his dreams and goals. The lawyers of Reiff and Bily are not afraid to ask the insurance companies or juries to fully compensate plaintiffs for the loss of their dreams and hopes.

Hope was personified in Greek mythology as "Elpis". When Pandora opened Pandora's box, she let out all of the evils except one known as hope.

In law, damages refer to the money awarded to a claimant, also known as a plaintiff, following a successful claim in a civil action. Damages in personal injury or tort affairs are generally awarded to place the plaintiff in a position that he or she would not have been in had the tort or action not have taken place which put the person in the situation. Compensatory damages compensates the plaintiff for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and losses of hope. Examples of this include physical or emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of consortium, disfigurement, loss of reputation, loss or impairment of mental or physical capacity, loss of life's pleasures, frustration, humiliation, degradation, and a non-inclusive list of other factors. This is not easily quantifiable and depends on the individual circumstances. We refer to it as, what is the value of hope? What is the value of the loss of a plaintiff’s loss of dreams and hopes that he had prior to the incident? We seek to recover full compensatory damages generally to place the plaintiff in a position in which he would have been had the offense or tort not taken place.

Continue reading "My Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorney Reinforced the Value of Hope" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Medical Malpractice , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

On January 19, 2002, Benetta Buell-Wilson of San Diego, California was driving her 1997 Ford Explorer on an interstate highway when she swerved to avoid a metal object in the road and the SUV went out of control. The vehicle skidded across the highway and rolled more than 4 ½ times when the Explorer came to rest on its roof. The accident left the 49 year old woman crushed and paralyzed. A California jury awarded Buell-Wilson and her husband $369,000,000, including $246,000,000 in punitive damages. The state courts of California reduced the amount of the verdict. However, the California Court of Appeals approved an $82.6 million dollar settlement, including $55 million in punitive damages.

The experienced Philadelphia motor vehicle accident and personal injury lawyers at the law firm of Reiff and Bily have been handling SUV Explorer rollover and 15 passenger van rollover cases in Pennsylvania and other states in the nation with a successful track record. The Explorer and other SUV’s are flawed because they have a higher center of gravity and are prone to rollover. Also, research indicates that the Explorer roofs are inadequate to protect occupants in a rollover accident and Ford was aware of knowledge of these designs flaws but failed to fix them. Ford has consistently argued that the verdicts against them are unjust because the design of the vehicles meets minimal federal safety standards.

On February 8, 2008, the Ford Motor Company paid $6.5 million dollars to a 41 year old man left brain damaged in a 2004 rollover accident involving an Explorer sport utility vehicle that a Texas jury ordered them to pay. In that claim, Ruben Camora lost control of his 1993 Explorer when a tire lost its tread and he was ejected from the vehicle as it rolled over. His mother, who sued on his behalf, noted that the tread separation set off vibrations on the rear of the vehicle that caused it to skate sideways because of a defect in the SUV’s suspension.

Continue reading "PENNSYLVANIA SUV ROLLOVER LAWYER WEIGHS IN ON DESIGN DEFECTS INHERENT TO SUVs AND I5 PASSENGER VANS IN PENNSYLVANIA AND THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accident , Catastrophic loss , Personal Injury , Product Liability , Vehicle Rollover

Bookmark:

The high cost of litigation is ever increasing and these hired guns are out of control. Are they worth the money?

The costs associated with personal injury lawsuits are quite significant and rising every day. Many state that the overhead costs of malpractice and product liability lawyer litigation are exorbitant. Many Americans hear that lawsuits are rampant and frivolous, clogging the courts and depriving taxpayers of their funds. On the other hand, honest plaintiff attorneys maintain that they are the policemen of society and that frivolous lawsuits are an exception. Obviously, an experienced personal injury or product liability lawyer would have to be crazy to take a meritless claim which would result in a huge expenditure if the same attorney is working on a contingent fee basis.

The purpose of the tort system is to fairly compensate victims and make them whole by virtue of compensatory damages. Obviously, there are some lawyers who will take just about any case that walks into the door and hope that writing a few threatening letters or taking minimal action will scare their opponents into a quick and “easy A” settlement These are the types of lawyers the educated consumer should avoid. It is important, however, when seeking a lawyer to represent your interests, to remember that you get one bite at the apple and your lawyer should be qualified, insured, in good standing with the bar association, interested in your claim, screened for suitability and experience handling legal matters such as yours. The lawyers at the Pennsylvania personal injury firm of Reiff and Bily have 30 years experience handling thousands of carefully screened car accident, medical malpractice and defective products cases. They will carefully screen your case, investigate comprehensively and decide if it is worthwhile to pursue without wasting your time or their resources - as a result of such careful screening. They only accept approximately 30-40 percent of the clients that contact them. These distinguished Pennsylvania car accident attorneys have recovered in excess of 150 million dollars for their clients solely on a contingent basis.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorney Weighs in on Expert Witnesses" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accident , Medical Malpractice , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

There could be danger lurking in your own home or backyard. Injuries to children can occur anywhere. They can happen in your house, backyard, school, day care facility, or even in a public park. While it is seemingly impossible to keep a child protected all times, it is important for parents and children to become aware of the dangers that lurk in play grounds and toys. The Pennsylvania personal injury and play-ground accident lawyers at the Philadelphia products liability law firm of Reiff and Bily have been researching and handling thousands of personal injury cases since 1979. Our Pennsylvania defective product attorneys have had extensive experience in the area of defective toys (products liability claims) and play-ground or amusement injuries.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 2001 approximately 45% of playground-related injuries are severe (fractures, internal injuries, concussions, dislocations, and amputations) and about 75% of nonfatal injuries were related to playground equipment failure, misoperation or malfunction.

Between 1990 and 2000, 147 children ages 14 and younger died from playground-related injuries. 82 of these injuries (56%) died from strangulation and 31 of these injuries (20%) died from falls to the playground surface. Most of these fatalities (70%) occurred on home playgrounds. Public playground climbers resulted in the most common cause of an injury as compared to any other equipment. At home playgrounds, swings were responsible for most injuries.

Continue reading "Toys And Playgrounds Might Not Be As Safe As One Would Presume" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Amusement Parks , Negligence , Personal Injury , Product Liability , playground accidents

Bookmark:

THE RISE IN PENNSYLVANIA AND THE UNITED STATES

There are approximately 180,000 lawnmower accidents per year. Recently, featured on the CBS early morning news, was the case of Betty Forsythe, whose grandson suffered catastrophic injuries in Pennsylvania in a lawnmower accident. In the interview, Ms. Forsythe, of Duncannon, PA, noted that her grandson, Dylan, lost three fingers and one of his feet and stated “Children are fast, children are quick. If you are the parents or grandparents, if you are watching children, just don’t allow them to be in the same area where mowing is done”. In the same story, Dr. Scott Cozen of Shriner’s Hospital for Children, a specialist in pediatric and hand and foot surgery, indicated that he has treated dozens of children injured by lawnmowers and stated that lawnmower accidents are the number one cause of foot amputations in children nationwide. He noted that “either the child is riding on the mower with Grandpop or Dad and subsequently falls off and has a devastating injury while playing in the yard and the child is inadvertently run over. He further noted that the majority of the kids injured by lawnmowers are teenagers. Many teenagers are cutting the lawn for allowance, at which point the lawnmower gets stuck and they do something stupid such as putting their foot in, reaching their hand in and resulting in an amputation.

A lawnmower can be a dangerous machine causing catastrophic injuries and death if not used properly. Most lawnmower accidents are catastrophic with over half requiring amputations of toes, feet, legs or fingers. It is noted that the summertime is the most dangerous time for kids and lawnmowers. Apparently, children do not have an appropriate fear of power lawnmowers and with a parent mowing, they cannot hear the child running up so that even with backing up or going forward, the child can often end up under the mower.

Recently on the ABC “Good Morning America” show, the case of Henry Burmester, a 4 year old, was noted. Unfortunately, Henry Burmester‘s father accidently ran over Henry’s foot with the lawnmower. His Dad, Donald, was backing up the mower and never saw his son coming as the spinning blade hit the boy’s leg and foot. According to the report, the Burmesters began a campaign and non-profit organization called “Know Before You Mow” to alert parents and kids to the dangers of lawnmowers. It includes chilling public service announcements that demonstrate how quickly a child can run into trouble with a lawnmower.

The Pennsylvania personal injury attorneys of Reiff and Bily, we have been researching and handling product liability matters for approximately 30 years. Product liability law mandates that manufacturers have a responsibility and a legal obligation to produce safe products. Nowhere is this more important than in the manufacturing of both regular and riding lawnmowers.

Continue reading "PREVENTABLE LAWNMOWER ACCIDENTS ARE ON " »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Negligence , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

THE INCREASING NUMBER OF DEATHS AND CATASTROPHIC INJURY

It’s summertime and more and more, emergency officials are responding to jet ski accidents throughout the United States. On July 13, 2008, emergency officials from Louisville and Howard’s Creek, Ohio responded to an accident involving at least one jet ski on the Ohio river.

On June 15, 2008, another teenager was killed on the Colorado River in Colorado when her jet ski collided with another personal water craft on the river. Over the last ten years, usage of jet skis have enjoyed a surge of popularity, adding to a growing danger on our nation's waterways. Today there are over 1 million personal water craft vessels in use in America and on average approximately 5,000 jet ski accidents occur each year resulting in 2,600 injuries in over 72 deaths. The laws relating to the operation of jet skis and the manufacture of jet skis are exceedingly complex and require an intensive knowledge of products liability, state and federal laws governing boating accidents, as well as maritime and international waterway laws.

The personal injury attorneys in Pennsylvania at the law firm of Reiff and Bily help victims recover compensation for injuries suffered in boating and jet ski accidents. At the Reiff and Bily law firm, our experience with the investigation and litigation of recreational boating and jet ski claims can give you an advantage in establishing liability against the responsible party. Common injuries associated with jet ski accidents include but are not limited to head and brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, burn injuries, hyperthermia and of course, drowning. Unfortunately, it is a fact that many inexperienced boaters are allowed to operate jet skis and personal water craft in U.S. waterways. Just think how easy it is for you to go and rent a jet ski by just presenting your credit card. The usage of the jet ski by inexperienced boaters places the lives of themselves as well as countless other people in jeopardy by reckless conduct. Along with this risk comes a host of problems related to intoxicated boaters and drunk driving accidents, collisions with other boats, water intrusion injuries, collisions with docks, piers, shorelines and swimmers and other serious injuries.

Continue reading "JET SKI ACCIDENTS ON THE RISE - WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Negligence , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Flammable clothing and bedding are very dangerous and often times cause death and disfigurement to unsuspecting consumers due to serious burn injuries. If your clothing catches fire, flames may spread quickly through the clothing, sometimes causing the material to melt onto your skin, and create severe and disfiguring burns all over your body. If you bedding catches fire, especially if you’re sleeping, your temple of relaxation could become a death trap. Depending on the type of fabric, textile construction, weaves, weight, and finish, as well as looseness of fit, certain materials, when ignited accidentally, can pose a serious risk of a burn injury or even death. The Pennsylvania burn injury and product liability lawyers at the Philadelphia law firm of Reiff and Bily have been researching and handling flammable clothing and bedding claims since 1979.

The one of the consumer product laws passed in 1953 was the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) to regulate the manufacture of highly flammable clothing due to an epidemic of burns from flammable children’s clothing in the 1940s. In 1967, Congress amended the FFA to expand coverage to include interior furnishings as well as paper, plastic, foam, and other materials used in wearing apparel and interior furnishings. Responsibility for administering the FFA was transferred to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) when it was created in 1972. Under the FFA, the CPSC can issue mandatory flammability standards for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of fabric and garments. After standards for sleepwear were loosened in 1996, an increase in clothing burns among young children wearing loose sleep garments was observed. Despite efforts by the CPSC, injuries resulting from flammable clothing and fabric still remain a danger.

Continue reading "Flammable Clothing and Bedding Material – Are You Wearing Or Sleeping On A Dangerous Material? " »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Burns , Flammable Clothing and Bedding , Negligence , Personal Injury , Product Liability , Strict Liability

Bookmark:

Everyone needs to get from one place to another and many people drive a car. When you’re driving and transporting children, wouldn’t you consider child car seat safety? Parents rely on child safety seats to protect their children, but it is not unusual that there could be a defect in the seat making it extremely hazardous. The Pennsylvania product liability lawyers at the Philadelphia law firm of Reiff and Bily have been researching and handling numerous defective car seat cases since 1979.

In March of 2008, Evenflo Discovery seats were being recalled due to a flaw that the child seat would fail during a side-impact crash. During testing, a ram struck the vehicle’s side at 38.5 miles an hour. The portion of the seat in which a child would be strapped in broke free of the base. The base anchors the seat to the car and the seat was thrown around the interior of the car. This was not the first time a child safety seat was recalled. In 2007, there was 11 recalls of child seats, totaling about 3.35 million seats as reported by The New York Times.

Continue reading "Protect Your Precious Cargo – Keep Your Children Safely Secured In Your Vehicle " »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accident , Child Safety Seats , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark:

Amusement parks are meant to be a place where families could and should have fun out doors, playing games and riding on roller coasters. Most of the time when we think about amusement parks we think of “KODAK” moments of smiles and laughs with our family. Roller coasters and other rides are typically safe to ride, but that does not mean they are free from disasters. The Pennsylvania catastrophic injury lawyers at the Philadelphia law firm of Reiff and Bily have been researching and handling many amusement park accident injury and death claims since 1979.

Amusement parks are supposed to inspect their rides daily, but accidents can still occur. Sometimes the rides are outdated or in need of repair. Other times it’s a ride that is not inherently safe or becomes unsafe due to worker negligence or improper maintenance. In July of 2008, 4 people were injured in Denmark due to their roller coaster’s car came of the tracks and fell onto the cement ground below the ride. The roller coaster opened only a month prior to the accident. Even the newest of rides might cause a serious injury if improperly designed, installed, or maintained.

Continue reading "Amusement Parks Are Not So Amusing When Rides Cause Injury Or Death" »

Posted by Jeffrey M. Reiff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Amusement Parks , Malfunctions , Negligence , Personal Injury , Product Liability

Bookmark: