Category: Dangerous Products/Liability

Nov 30, 2012 - Dangerous Products/Liability by Cross & Smith

During the holiday season, children often clamor to get the latest toys off the shelves. Many kids receive dozens of new toys from friends and family members, which means many new products enter your home. Unfortunately, not all of these toys will bring holiday cheer. In fact, some of them may be downright dangerous. As adults shop for toys and kids anticipate unwrapping their new goods, our injury attorneys in Birmingham want to urge parents and other caregivers to exercise caution this holiday season. Making sure toys are age appropriate, keeping tabs on new toys that come into the home and checking product recall lists are all important steps to help keep your children safe from the harm that a dangerous product can cause. Holiday Toy Shopping Risks In 2010, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released a report on toy recalls and toy injuries. According to the report, the number of toy recalls has been declining in recent years. In 2010, for example, 44 recalls were necessary as compared to 50 in 2009 and 172 in 2008. Toy-related fatalities were also on the decline, with 12 reported deaths of kids under 15 in 2009 as compared to 24 deaths in 2/car-accidents/alabama-traffic-accidents-likely-to-increase-with-economic-recovery/ and 2008.

Apr 18, 2012 - Dangerous Products/Liability by Cross & Smith

You can sustain an injury doing almost anything. But when you suffer an injury because of someone else, how do you prove that they are at fault? One of the key components to proving certain types of Tuscaloosa personal injury cases is providing expert witness testimony. The law governing expert witness testimony is complex. Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony in federal court i.e. necessary qualifications of an expert witness, requirement that expert’s testimony be based on reliable principles and methods. In Newell Rubbermaid v. Raymond Corp. a federal appeals court addressed, among other things, the admissibility of expert witness testimony. This case arose where Hashman (Victim) was working in a factory for Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. (Newell or Employer). The victim was required to use a Dockstocker forklift which was manufactured by Raymond (Manufacturer). As part of the design of this forklift, the rear of the machine had no guard door to protect the operator.