Archive for Product Liability

Burn Injuries from Product Defects in WA – Holding Manufacturers Accountable

Burn Injuries from Product Defects in WA – Holding Manufacturers Accountable

Burn injuries are among the most painful and life-altering injuries a person can suffer — and when they’re caused by a defective product, the legal stakes are even higher. In Washington, product liability law protects victims of faulty appliances, batteries, electronics, clothing, and even furniture that ignite or overheat due to poor design or manufacturing defects.

How does a product cause a burn injury? It could be an exploding lithium battery, a space heater that catches fire, or cookware with handles that melt. Even children’s pajamas that fail to meet fire safety standards can become a legal liability. The key question in every case is this: was the product unreasonably dangerous when used as intended?

Victims don’t need to prove the company was negligent. Washington allows strict liability claims — meaning if the product was defective and caused harm, the manufacturer can be held responsible, even if they didn’t intend any harm. Retailers and distributors may also share in the liability.

What about user error? Manufacturers often try to blame consumers for misusing the product. But when a product lacks proper warnings, has unclear instructions, or fails under normal conditions, the law typically sides with the injured party. Photos of the aftermath, damaged products, receipts, and packaging all become key evidence in proving the case.

What kinds of burns qualify? First-degree burns are typically not enough on their own, but second- and third-degree burns that lead to hospitalization, surgery, or scarring usually meet the threshold for legal action. Permanent disfigurement, nerve damage, or psychological trauma from the incident can also factor into a claim.

Can you sue for burns caused by imported goods? Yes — Washington courts allow lawsuits against U.S.-based retailers and distributors of foreign products. Even if the item was made overseas, liability often extends to the companies that profited from selling it.

What damages are available? Compensation may include medical bills, rehabilitation, plastic surgery, lost income, emotional distress, and long-term care. If the company ignored prior complaints or safety reports, punitive damages may also apply.

Burn injury cases often lead to product recalls, new safety warnings, and changes in manufacturing processes. Legal action doesn’t just help the victim — it can prevent others from suffering the same harm.

If you or someone you know was burned by a consumer product in Washington, don’t assume it was your fault. The product may have been dangerous all along — and the law is on your side.

E‑Bike and E‑Scooter Lithium Battery Explosions – Product Liability and Consumer Danger

E‑Bike and E‑Scooter Lithium Battery Explosions – Product Liability and Consumer Danger

E-bikes and e-scooters are everywhere — from city streets to delivery fleets to suburban garages. But behind the convenience lies a growing legal risk: lithium-ion battery fires. These devices have sparked lawsuits across the country, including in Washington, where injured riders and homeowners are beginning to hold manufacturers accountable for fires, burns, and property damage caused by defective or poorly made batteries.

What happens when your mode of transportation becomes a fire hazard? Lithium-ion batteries can overheat, explode, or ignite when they’re overcharged, punctured, exposed to high temperatures, or manufactured with internal defects. For some, the danger doesn’t appear until the scooter is parked inside a home, or the battery is charging silently in a garage.

The central legal issue is product liability. Were the batteries properly tested? Did the manufacturer issue appropriate warnings? Was the charger included with the device UL-certified? These questions determine whether a manufacturer or retailer is responsible for injuries caused by thermal runaway — the chemical reaction that can trigger an explosion or fire in faulty batteries.

Is the manufacturer always liable? Not always — but in many cases, they are. If a battery was defectively designed, poorly assembled, or lacked safety mechanisms, that’s grounds for strict liability. Retailers may also be responsible if they failed to warn customers, sold devices without proper certifications, or ignored safety recalls. In some cases, victims may also have claims against importers or shipping companies, especially when the product was sourced from overseas and sold in the U.S. market.

Do riders have any responsibility? Riders may be accused of misusing the device, overcharging the battery, or exposing it to moisture. But most e-bike and scooter owners use these devices exactly as intended. When something explodes during routine use — or while charging overnight — the courts often side with consumers, especially when no clear warning was provided.

What evidence helps in a battery fire case? Photos of the damaged device, the charging area, and any remaining packaging can be critical. So can surveillance video, receipts, and the device’s instruction manual. In many cases, the battery itself is sent to a forensic lab for testing. Attorneys often bring in battery experts or electrical engineers to reconstruct what went wrong and why.

Why does this matter to homeowners and tenants? E-bike battery fires can cause serious structural damage. If your insurance claim is denied or underpaid, a product liability claim may be your best path to full compensation — not just for physical injuries, but for property loss, temporary relocation, and emotional trauma.

As micromobility devices grow in popularity, the need for legal accountability grows with them. Cities may adopt stricter regulations. But for now, the burden often falls on individual consumers to fight back after an injury — and make sure dangerous products are pulled from the market before someone else gets hurt.

Industrial Airborne Chemical Exposure in WA – Building a Toxic Injury Case

Industrial Airborne Chemical Exposure in WA – Building a Toxic Injury Case

In Washington, workers exposed to airborne industrial chemicals often don’t realize the harm until it’s too late. From paint vapors to cleaning agents to insulation dust, chemical exposure can silently attack the lungs, nervous system, and long-term health. When that exposure causes illness, the legal path to compensation can be complex — but not impossible.

What happens when your body absorbs damage day after day, but the signs don’t show up for years? That’s the core issue in many toxic exposure claims. Unlike a sudden injury like a car accident, chemical exposure often develops slowly. Workers might report headaches, dizziness, or coughing long before doctors connect the symptoms to chemical contact at work. And by the time they do, the employer’s records may be incomplete — or missing entirely.

Can you still file a claim if you didn’t realize you were exposed until years later? In many cases, yes. Washington law allows for toxic injury claims even after symptoms develop slowly, especially when the worker couldn’t reasonably discover the harm at the time of exposure. But it requires strong evidence — not just of the illness, but of the chemical, the exposure levels, and the path from workplace to injury.

Employers and manufacturers may argue that the worker’s symptoms came from another source — smoking, genetics, or a hobby. That’s why documentation becomes crucial. Medical records, witness testimony, job site photos, OSHA complaints, and even leftover materials from the site can become evidence in a toxic exposure case. So can expert analysis from industrial hygienists or toxicologists.

What if you were using protective gear? That’s not always a defense. If the employer provided inadequate protection, failed to train workers properly, or ignored safety complaints, they can still be held accountable — especially if the gear didn’t meet industry standards or wasn’t available when needed.

Is it always the employer who’s liable? Not necessarily. Third-party contractors, product manufacturers, or building owners may be at fault too. In Washington, workers’ compensation may cover part of the medical costs — but it doesn’t stop injured workers from suing third parties for full damages. That’s how many toxic exposure cases succeed: by identifying who provided the chemical, who failed to warn about it, or who ignored known hazards.

These cases aren’t just about one person’s health. They often reveal larger safety issues that put dozens or hundreds of workers at risk. When one victim steps forward, others often follow — and companies are forced to change.

What’s the long-term impact of winning a toxic injury case? For many workers, it means covering years of medical care, compensating for lost income, and ensuring their families aren’t left behind. It also sends a message to industries that exposure to dangerous chemicals isn’t just a cost of doing business — it’s a preventable harm, and they can be held accountable.

If you or someone you know is dealing with unexplained chronic illness after working in construction, factories, shipyards, or other chemical-heavy industries, it may be time to ask harder questions. Your health isn’t just a mystery. It may be evidence.

Washington Supreme Court – Third‑Party Liability in Multi‑Truck Crashes

Washington Supreme Court – Third‑Party Liability in Multi‑Truck Crashes

When multiple trucks collide on Washington highways, the aftermath is often devastating. But beyond the immediate injuries and property damage lies a critical legal question: who can be held responsible? A recent review by the Washington Supreme Court highlights the growing importance of third‑party liability in truck accidents — cases where companies other than the employer may share legal responsibility.

Imagine a chain‑reaction crash involving a delivery truck, a contracted maintenance provider, and a parts supplier. Most people assume the truck driver’s employer carries all the liability. But what happens when evidence shows that faulty maintenance, defective brakes, or subcontracted negligence contributed to the accident? In those situations, victims may have claims against multiple parties beyond the driver’s company.

Why does this matter to injured drivers and passengers? Truck crashes often cause catastrophic harm — spinal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, and permanent disability. The costs can quickly surpass basic insurance limits. Identifying all responsible parties ensures victims can access the compensation they need for medical bills, lost wages, and long‑term care. It also encourages accountability throughout the supply chain, from manufacturers to maintenance contractors.

The court’s review emphasized the importance of investigating the entire ecosystem of responsibility. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly examining:

  • Manufacturers – Did defective brakes, tires, or steering components play a role?
  • Maintenance Contractors – Were inspection logs falsified or service skipped to save costs?
  • Freight Brokers and Shippers – Did they pressure drivers to operate beyond safe hours or overload cargo?

One embedded question emerges: How often do crashes happen because every company involved assumed someone else would handle safety? This legal scrutiny shifts some focus away from just the driver and employer, widening the lens to corporate practices that can quietly create risk.

For injured victims, timing is critical. Washington has strict statutes of limitation on personal injury claims, and evidence can vanish quickly — skid marks fade, maintenance logs are shredded, and black box data can be overwritten. Acting quickly with a qualified attorney allows for subpoenas and preservation letters that lock down vital records before they disappear.

This focus on third‑party liability also serves the community at large. When manufacturers, contractors, and shippers know they can be held accountable, they are more likely to maintain safe practices. And that means fewer catastrophic pile‑ups on I‑5, Highway 2, and other busy freight corridors.

Ultimately, multi‑truck crashes are about more than one bad moment on the road. They are about the systems that allowed that moment to happen. The Washington Supreme Court’s review signals that responsibility can extend far beyond the cab of the truck, and that victims have more paths to justice than ever before.

Hyundai and Kia Held Liable for Lack of Immobilizers

Hyundai and Kia Held Liable for Lack of Immobilizers: A Milestone in Auto Industry Accountability

In a decision with far-reaching implications for automotive safety, a federal judge has ruled that Hyundai and Kia are liable for failing to install engine immobilizers in millions of their vehicles sold between 2011 and 2021. The judgment comes after a wave of nationwide class-action lawsuits linked to a surge in car thefts fueled by a viral trend on social media, often referred to as the “Kia Challenge.”

The ruling stems from allegations that Hyundai and Kia knowingly sold cars without basic anti-theft technology that had become standard across the industry. Immobilizers prevent a vehicle from starting unless the correct key or signal is present. Plaintiffs argued that the absence of this feature in certain models made the vehicles easy targets for theft, especially among younger drivers enticed by viral videos demonstrating how to steal the cars using nothing more than a USB cable.

Cities including Seattle, Cleveland, and Milwaukee joined the lawsuits after seeing steep rises in car thefts involving Hyundai and Kia models. In some urban areas, thefts of these vehicles increased by more than 800% in a single year. The lawsuits claim the automakers prioritized profits over safety by skipping the immobilizer feature to cut costs—despite being aware of the potential risks.

In court, Hyundai and Kia defended their decision by pointing out that their vehicles met all federal safety and anti-theft regulations at the time. However, the court concluded that compliance with outdated minimum standards does not absolve a manufacturer from responsibility when better technology is widely available, affordable, and proven effective.

Legal experts see this case as a turning point for automotive liability. Traditionally, manufacturers have been shielded if their products met government standards. This ruling, however, introduces a new expectation: manufacturers may now be judged by evolving industry norms and consumer safety expectations, not just regulations.

The automakers have already agreed to a $200 million settlement to resolve part of the legal fallout, which includes funding for theft deterrent software updates, reimbursements for out-of-pocket losses, and coverage for insurance surcharges. Still, many individual claims remain pending, especially those involving injuries or property damage linked to stolen vehicles.

For affected consumers, the decision offers a sense of justice. “We bought these cars believing they were safe,” said one plaintiff. “Instead, they became targets, and we had to live with fear and frustration.”

The ruling has also prompted Hyundai and Kia to begin installing immobilizers in all new models and to accelerate their rollout of software patches and steering wheel lock programs for existing vehicles. While these steps are welcomed, some critics argue they came too late to prevent widespread harm.

Cities that joined the lawsuit have also applauded the decision. Officials in Milwaukee, one of the hardest-hit cities, emphasized that corporate accountability is essential for public safety. “These companies had the technology and the knowledge,” said one city attorney. “They chose not to act, and communities paid the price.”

The case underscores a growing legal trend: courts are increasingly willing to hold corporations responsible when cost-saving measures result in foreseeable consumer harm. Whether in pharmaceuticals, environmental practices, or auto manufacturing, the expectation is shifting toward proactive risk management.

Hyundai and Kia now face the challenge of restoring public trust while absorbing the financial and reputational damage from this case. Industry analysts say the fallout may influence future vehicle design standards and force automakers to re-evaluate the balance between cost-efficiency and long-term liability.

Nationwide Class Action Filed Over Contaminated Eye Drops

Nationwide Class Action Filed Over Contaminated Eye Drops

Consumers across the United States have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of EzriCare and Delsam Pharma eye drops, alleging that contaminated products caused permanent vision damage, blindness, and in some cases, death. The eye drops were found to contain drug-resistant bacteria, prompting an urgent recall and FDA warning earlier this year.

According to the lawsuit, dozens of individuals suffered severe eye infections after using the over-the-counter lubricating drops. Lab tests revealed the presence of a rare strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to multiple antibiotics. This strain had never been previously detected in the U.S., raising concerns about lax manufacturing controls and international ingredient sourcing.

Plaintiffs allege that Global Pharma Healthcare, the Indian-based manufacturer, and the U.S. distributors failed to implement adequate quality control and sterility procedures in their production facilities. The complaint also accuses the companies of negligence, breach of warranty, and failure to warn consumers about potential contamination risks.

The class action includes claims from over 70 individuals in 16 states. One plaintiff, a 68-year-old woman in California, lost vision in one eye and underwent emergency surgery after developing a bacterial corneal ulcer. Another plaintiff in Texas reportedly died from a systemic infection linked to the contaminated drops.

The CDC and FDA issued public alerts and urged healthcare providers to stop distributing the products. Investigations revealed poor sterilization practices at the overseas facility and inadequate microbial testing before distribution. In response, the FDA placed Global Pharma Healthcare on its import alert list, effectively barring further shipments.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that this case represents a catastrophic failure in both manufacturing oversight and product distribution. “Consumers trusted these companies with their health,” one lawyer said. “Now many are permanently disabled because of a preventable lapse in safety.”

Legal experts say this case could reshape how liability is assigned in pharmaceutical supply chains, especially with an increasing number of U.S. drugs and medical products sourced internationally. If the plaintiffs succeed, it may trigger stricter import controls and regulatory reforms.

Representatives for the manufacturers have declined to comment on the lawsuit, though internal audits reportedly show lapses in both documentation and cleanliness standards.

For affected individuals, the legal case offers a chance at compensation—but also aims to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for ensuring product safety. The class action is expected to proceed in federal court later this year.

 

Florida Jury Awards $3M in Takata Airbag Case

Florida Jury Awards $3M in Takata Airbag Case

A Florida jury has awarded $3 million to Jose Hernandez, a Miami resident who sustained serious injuries in a 2020 car accident involving a defective Takata airbag. The case marks one of the latest legal victories for consumers harmed by the now-infamous airbag manufacturer, whose faulty inflators have been linked to dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries worldwide.

Hernandez was driving his 2005 Honda Civic when another vehicle struck him while he attempted a left turn. The impact triggered the airbag, but instead of providing protection, the Takata inflator exploded violently—launching a metal shard that lodged into Hernandez’s arm. The injury required emergency surgery and left him with permanent nerve damage and limited mobility.

The jury found both Takata and Honda partially liable, citing their failure to adequately warn consumers and address known safety risks. Although Honda had previously issued a recall for the vehicle, Hernandez’s legal team argued that the automaker had not made a sufficient effort to ensure affected drivers completed the necessary repairs.

Takata’s airbags, which used ammonium nitrate as a propellant, have been the subject of the largest automotive recall in U.S. history. When exposed to heat and humidity, the compound can destabilize, causing the inflator to rupture explosively. Millions of vehicles from numerous automakers have been impacted by the defect.

In its defense, Honda claimed it had mailed multiple recall notices to Hernandez, but the jury determined the company’s actions did not absolve it of responsibility. Jurors ultimately awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

Legal experts say the case underscores the continuing liability automakers face from legacy defects—even years after initial recalls are issued. It also highlights growing public expectations that manufacturers ensure their vehicles are not only built safely, but that recalls are enforced proactively.

For Hernandez, the lawsuit was not just about compensation. In a statement following the verdict, he said, “I brought this case to make sure this doesn’t happen to someone else. No one should suffer permanent injuries because a safety feature fails.”

The verdict may encourage other victims of defective airbags to come forward, especially those who missed recall opportunities or were unaware their vehicle was affected. Consumer safety advocates argue that more aggressive outreach efforts are needed, particularly in regions prone to extreme weather that exacerbates the airbag risk.

Honda and other automakers have faced thousands of similar lawsuits tied to Takata inflators. Although Takata filed for bankruptcy in 2017, cases continue to be litigated across the country. In many instances, carmakers are left to shoulder the legal and financial consequences.

As of now, Takata’s airbags have been linked to at least 27 deaths and over 400 injuries in the U.S. alone, with recalls still underway in many states. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has urged owners of affected vehicles to respond to recall notices and seek free replacements.

 

 

Lithium-ion Battery Explodes In Man’s Pocket, Causes Severe Burns. “It was like a flame thrower.”

Daniel Anderson of Derby, Kansas, was working at his job in a warehouse on February 9, 2016, when his pocket containing a lithium-ion battery “suddenly and without warning exploded and caught on fire.”

“Nobody thinks twice about putting a battery in their pocket… that’s the first place it’s going to go,” said Mr. Anderson’s lawyer, Dustin DeVaughn.

According to the lawsuit filed by Mr. DeVaughn, his client bought the battery from Big E’s Vapor Shop on February 6, 2016, to use as a backup for his e-cigarette device. He was carrying the battery in his pocket together with car keys and change when the explosion happened.

“It ignites like a bomb,” Mr. DeVaughn said.

The lawsuit states the cause of the explosion was ‘thermal runaway,’ a destructive phenomenon which occurred after “an external short (on the battery) that resulted from contact with metallic objects.” The battery Mr. Anderson bought from Big E’s Vapor Shop “had no warnings or instructions concerning the risk of explosion or fire if the battery came into contact with conductive objects.”

“There are many other consumers out there that have been very severely injured just like him. Although Daniel was able to get the fire out, he suffered second and third-degree chemical and thermal burns to his left leg from thigh to the shin, and second-degree burns to his fingertips and hands,” said Mr. DeVaughn. In addition to other medical procedures, Mr. Anderson required skin grafts. He was out of work for 16 weeks, losing over $13,000 in wages and incurring medical bills in excess of $109,000.

“The burn to my leg has changed my life. I can no longer physically function the way I used to.” Mr. Anderson is seeking damages in excess of $75,000 from Big E’s Vapor Shop and the battery’s distributor, Oklahoma-based VapeUSA Corp.

According to K.M. Abraham, a pioneer of the Li-ion battery and a professor at Northeastern University, “the failure rate for lithium-ion batteries is less than one in a million.” The FDA recommends keeping loose batteries inside a case to prevent them from coming into contact with metal objects and short-circuiting.

A Defective Robot Causes the Death of a Michigan Woman at Workplace

A man blames five robotics, welding, and automotive companies for his wife’s death. He claims that the five companies did not design, build and test the robot thoroughly. Wanda Holbrook, a former employee at Venta Ionia LLC, a company that deals with stamping, molding and other related services for chrome-plated plastics, bumpers and trailer hitches, was found dead after a robot crashed her head. The robot is said to have been malfunctioning, and it crushed her while she was adjusting a machine, as narrated by her husband during a lawsuit.

She was working in either of section 140 or 150 when a robot from section 130 approached her and hit her hard and crushed her head.

Holbrook was then found by her colleagues who announced the death was an instant one due to head trauma. Her husband filed a lawsuit, blaming Prodomax Automation Canada, Flex-n-gate LLC, FANUC Corp; Nachi Robotic System Inc. and Lincoln Company for Wanda’s untimely death. FANUC America and Lincoln are blamed for making the robot while Flex-N-Gate and Prodomax are blamed for helping in installation and servicing of the robot. It was a fault for the robot to move from section 130 to section 140 where it attacked the employee. It also made a mistake of trying to load a hitch assembly since the fixture was already loaded. The complaint said that there must have been a system failure in the robot and the defects caused it to kill Wanda.

According to the lawsuit, the automation system in those working sections was not safe enough, and this must have contributed to the incident too. The safety doors made to prevent robots from moving around from one section to another were not competent enough as claimed by the deceased’s husband. The estate where she came from has sought compensation for the wrongful death and product liability. They are represented by Matthew Wikander and Smith Haughey Rice. However, Amanda Butler declined the lawsuit claims but offered his message of condolence to the family. He said that their company provides adequate safety and that the claims that the safety regulations were not effective were not accurate, but they had to review the lawsuit completely before making any comments. Prodomax, Flex-N-Gate, and Nerch had not yet replied to the emails sent to them requesting their comments on the same.

SoyNut Butter Co. Sued on the Grounds of E. Coli Contamination

Just a few days after recalling its I.M Healthy SoyNut butter, SoyNut Butter Co. gets sued by parents of an 8-year-old child hospitalized with E. coli after consuming the spread.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the boy is one of the 12 people infected with E. coli. So far, the outbreak has been reported in five states — Arizona, Oregon, New Jersey, California, and Maryland. Out of the 12 infected, eleven of them are children.

Erin Simmons and Mosby of California argue that their son was diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) after regularly eating the SoyNut butter, which is the company’s peanut butter substitute. The condition was so dire that the young boy had to undergo a blood transfusion and dialysis — hospitalized at Stanford Children’s Hospital for 21 days.

E. coli (Escherichia coli) is a bacterium that thrives in animals and human’s digestive tracts. A person can become infected with E. coli after getting into contact with stool, or feces, of animals or humans. It mostly happens when you eat food or drink water that is already contaminated by the E. coli bacterium. Out of the many types of E. coli, only a few of them are harmful and may cause the following:

  • Bloody diarrhea
  • Severe anemia
  • Kidney Failure
  • Urinary tract infections
  • Sometimes death

Although the case is still ongoing and we cannot predict what the final judgment will be, there are a few things to understand about this case, which can shape and influence the verdict. These are:

  1. Most cases arising from a food poisoning fall under product liability, meaning that SoyNut Butter Co. may be held liable for selling defective products.
  2. SoyNut Butter Co. could also be held liable for negligence. The company did not provide a safe environment for the production or manufacture of the SoyNut butter.
  3. There is also another possibility that the company may be held liable for breach of implied warranty. This concerns about the notion that products sold to the ordinary consumers should meet their expectations.