San Diego Injury Law Blog

It's January, and many of us are hard at work making changes in our lives to kick off the new year. Of course, one of the time-tests favorite resolutions is to improve physical fitness and get in shape. Many different methods are often employed to lose weight and get fit. The most popular options are almost always those that seem both fun and easy. For example, one supposedly easy way to get in shape that has captured public attention over the last few years is a new kind of shoes called Shape-Ups. Shape-Ups are manufactured by Skechers. They are claimed to boast a revolutionary new design that works muscles all over the lower body, helping wearers tone up and get a real workout just by walking around.

However, a San Diego personal injury law firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 37 people who claim that they were injured as a result of wearing the shoes. The types of injuries suffered vary, with some plaintiffs complaining of twisted or sprained ankles and torn ligaments, while others have suffered falls and broken hips while wearing the shoes. The design of the shoe differs from regular athletic shoes in that rather than being relatively flat on the bottom it has a bulging base that rolls the foot as the wearer walks.

The plaintiffs are alleging fraud, negligence, and other claims against Skechers. According to ABC 10 News out of San Diego, although the company did not comment on this lawsuit specifically, Skechers did previously release a statement in which the company said, “Millions of people wear Shape-Ups without experiencing (serious injuries).” However, according to the California personal injury lawyer who is representing the class of plaintiffs, there has been no indication thus far that Skechers conducted safety testing of the shoes prior to their release on the market.

The lawsuit will likely involve testimony by medical experts as to whether or not the Shape-Up shoes were indeed the cause of the plaintiffs' various injuries. Ultimately, if it is determined that the shoes are responsible for the harm suffered by the plaintiffs, then Skechers could likely be found liable. Under California products liability law, when a manufacturer produces a product that is unsafe when used in an intended or foreseeable manner, the manufacturer is liable for the injuries that the product causes.

In addition to facing the lawsuit, Skechers may have to also deal with scrutiny from the federal government. The Federal Trade Commission, the agency responsible for consumer protection, has recently been looking into a similar product manufactured by Reebok. Either way, the lawsuit will likely make consumers think twice before they purchase Shape-Ups in the future. Our San Diego injury lawyers know that raising awareness of potentially dangerous products is one of many ways that the civil justice system acts as an important check on companies.

The injuries that form the basis of the suit, regardless of what proves to be the actual cause, are a good reminder to always get a doctor's opinion before starting any kind of exercise program, even one that just involves a change in shoe. Our bodies are fragile, and changing the way that we work out can wreak havoc if we're not careful.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Surfer's Lawsuit Alleges Surfboard was Unsafe for Intended Use

Product Defect: Pogo Sticks Recalled Because of Injury Risk

San Diego surfing injuries occur with some frequency because of the large numbers of people who flock to the beach whenever there is a good opportunity to catch a few waves. Most of them will tell you that when it comes to riding a wave, “bigger is always better.” However, the higher the waves, the greater the chance of injury to the surfer. Common surfer injuries include back and neck injuries suffered as a result of “wiping out” and colliding with the ocean floor, muscle strains from the physical exertion of surfing, and minor cuts and bruises, which are usually caused by either the sharper ends of a surfboard or being carried forcefully along the ocean floor by waves and currents.

Although surfboard injuries can involve lacerations, including those caused by the sharp edges of a surfboard, these lacerations are typically not severe enough to cause long-term or permanent damage. However, according to an L.A. Times article, that was allegedly not the case for a surfer by the name of Tom Gregg. Mr. Gregg recently filed a California products liability lawsuit against Channel Islands Surfboards, a company that manufactures and markets surfboards. The lawsuit alleges that a Channel Islands surfboard caused a laceration to Gregg's leg that was so severe it cut through several layers of tissue and muscle and resulted in permanent muscle damage.

In a California products liability lawsuit such as this one, where the allegations point to a defect in design, the plaintiff must prove that the product's manufacturer designed the product in such a way that it would be unreasonably dangerous when used in reasonably foreseeable ways. In Gregg's case, his use of the surfboard was obviously foreseeable since he was using it as intended by the manufacturer, so the major question in his case will be whether the design of the surfboard, with its sharp edges, will be found to be unreasonably dangerous. Channel Islands will no doubt try to point to the fact that common surfing injuries do include lacerations from the sharp edges of surfboards, but Gregg will emphasize the unusual severity of his injury and the fact that the cut to his leg was so deep that it caused permanent damage to his muscles.

Although surfing is an inherently risky sport even under the best conditions, that does not mean that surfers have no rights against product suppliers who do not use due care when manufacturing their equipment. Everyone has a right to know what risks he or she is facing and to make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in dangerous sports like surfing or other risky activities. However, when products are unsafe, people cannot accurately assess the risks that they undertake. By representing the victims who are injured in such situations, California products liability attorneys make products safer for use by the public by influencing manufacturers and providing them with great financial incentives to find safer ways of designing their products.

If you have suffered a surfing injury or any other kind of California sports injury because of a problem with your equipment, you may also have a products liability case. Local residents should be sure to contact a San Diego products liability lawyer to see if they are entitled to compensation for your injuries.

See our related blog posts:

Product Defect: Pogo Sticks Recalled Because of Injury Risk

Safety Concerns Prompt Crib Recall

On October 20, 2006, Andy Polakowski, a freshman at Ohio State, was in the dorm elevator with 23 other students when it stopped on the third floor. As Andy tried to step off the elevator, it suddenly descended, pinning him between the ceiling of the elevator and the third floor. Tragically, he was pinned in the torso area, and died almost immediately. He was only 18 and left behind his parents and three sisters.

As a result of his death, Andy's parents brought a wrongful death lawsuit against Ohio State alleging that the school was negligent in the inspection and maintenance of the elevator, creating the conditions that allowed the brakes to fail, and killing Andy. The university, in turn, filed cross complaints against several companies involved in the installation and maintenance of the subject elevator. According to reports, inspection of the elevator revealed that it had a faulty brake, an inadequate counterweight, and no overloading alarm system. It also didn't have a safety device to prevent sudden descents, something that is apparently required on modern elevators.

Continue reading "University Pays $1 Million to Elevator Malfunction Death Case" »

It was announced yesterday by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that a voluntary recall of Pogo Sticks made by Bravo Sports of Santa Fe Springs, California. According to the recall alert, the bottom of the pogo stick frame is prone to breaking apart; causing the pin that holds the bouncing spring to break off. When this happens, the pogo becomes a hazardous fall risk, and the spring a laceration hazard. Consumers should stop using the pogo sticks until it is confirmed that it is not involved in the recall.

Apparently Bravo Sports has received over 100 reports of breaking incidents involving the pogo sticks, nine of which apparently caused injury. One of the reported cases involved the facial laceration of a child, and two others who suffered facial injuries.

Continue reading "Product Defect: Pogo Sticks Recalled Because of Injury Risk" »

A San Diego jury returned a $14.4 million verdict this week in favor of three young boys whose parents were killed in 2006 in an auto accident in Arizona. The wrongful death verdict was rendered against Mossy Ford, after a jury concluded that the dealership's negligence in performing a tire repair caused the fatal accident.

Adam Shea, one of the attorneys for the three young boys, ages 8, 5, and 3 at the time of the accident, argued that the Ford E350 van being driven by Casey Barber experienced tread separation on one of the tires while traveling on Highway 98 in Arizona. The tread separation, according to the plaintiffs, was the result of a faulty tire repair at the dealership. According to Shea, the dealership should never have tried to repair it. The jury agreed.

The case was venued in San Diego because that is where the defendant, Mossy Ford, is located. According to news reports, there were originally additional defendants, who paid $8.3 million in settlement prior to trial.

Source: San Diego Union Tribune

Randall Walton of the Walton Law Firm represents individuals and families who have been impacted by all types of injury-producing incidents, including auto accidents, product defect cases, assault and battery, wrongful death claims, worksite injuries, elder abuse and neglect, sexual molestation, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call toll free at (866) 607-1325 or locally at (760) 571-5500 for a free and confidential consultation.

As most know, the high-profile case involving the death of a San Diego family when the Lexus they were driving sped out of control and crashed has settled. Toyota Motor Corp. has agreed to pay relatives of the family of Mark Saylor an undisclosed sum to settle the case. How much? We will probably never know.

Most settlements of personal injury cases are confidential. Settlements are really side deals, where both parties agree to a separate settlement contract. One side, the plaintiff, agrees to dismiss the lawsuit, and the other side agrees to pay money for that dismissal. Frequently it is a provision of the settlement agreement that the settlement remain confidential, allowing the plaintiff to disclose the terms only to tax advisers, or if compelled to do so (by a governmental agency). Another common provision of settlement agreements is no admission of liability. Though the defendant is agreeing to pay money to "buy their peace," they almost always want the plaintiff to acknowledge that they are not admitting any liability. I am sure Toyota had done so here.

This case was just a pure tragedy, and the Saylor relatives hired one of San Diego finest product liability lawyers in John Gomez. The lawsuit alleged that the Lexus in which the Saylors were driving at the time of the accident was defective, and that the defect played a major role in the deaths. There is no doubt that Toyota paid a substantial sum in the case, whatever that may be.

Interestingly, the case is not over. An additional defendant in the case is Bob Baker Lexus, the dealership that provided the car to Saylor. In product liability cases, it's not just the manufacturer of the defective product that can be held liable for the defective product, but all the actors in the "stream of commerce" of that product. Since Bob Baker Lexus provided the car, it can be liable for the defect.

Naturally, Bob Baker wasn't too happy about the settlement. Its attorney told the Union Tribune that Toyota "left us hanging out there." I am certain we will be reading soon about Bob Baker Lexus's settlement with the family, and the legal actions arising from this whole sad affair will be over.

Source: San Diego Union Tribune

The Walton Law Firm represents individuals and families who have been impacted by all types of accidents including auto accidents, wrongful death claims, defective products, dog bites, worksite injuries, elder abuse and neglect, sexual molestation, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call toll free at (866) 607-1325 or locally at (760) 571-5500 for a free and confidential consultation.

A Northern California man was awarded $2.85 million in a settlement the maker of a stun-gun that was alleged to have caused permanent brain damage. The product manufacturer denied any liability, but agreed to pay the settlement.

According to reports, in October 2006, 49-year-old Steve Butler was intoxicated and off his psychiatric medications when he refused to get off a public bus. A police officer used a Taser X-26 from Taser International to subdue Butler, who went to cardiac arrest and stopped breathing. It took nearly 20 minutes for paramedics to resuscitate Butler, who suffered a major brain injury.

Nearly four years after the incident, Butler continues to have short-term memory problems, and a loss of mobility and motor skills. He cannot be left alone and requires 24-hour care. According to court documents, Butler is unlikely to recovery.

"This resolution will allow the Butler family to comfortably care for Steve for the rest of his life," attorney Dana Scruggs said of the settlement.

The case was not an easy one. Court documents reveal that Butler had a pre-existing heart condition, and the taser manufacturer had prevailed in all previous lawsuits against it.

Source: Mercury News

The accident and injury attorneys at Walton Law Firm represent individuals who have been injured in all types of incidents, including car accidents, product defect injuries, worksite injuries, nursing home neglect, food poisoning, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call toll free at (866) 607-1325 or local at (760) 571-5500 for a free and confidential consultation.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has announced that six manufacturers of drop-side cribs will voluntarily recall more than 2 million baby cribs after more than 250 reports of malfunction. In 16 of the reports the infants were entrapped, and in one the child was rendered unconscious and hospitalized. No wrongful deaths have been reported.

The seven companies involved in the recall are Delta Enterprise Corp., Jardine Enterprises, LaJobi, Million Dollar Baby, Child Craft and Simmons Juvenile Products.

"This new recall announcement is part of a larger effort by CPSC to clean up the marketplace from many of these unsafe cribs," said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Most of these recalled cribs have dangerous drop-sides, while the Delta crib can pose a danger to babies if the mattress support is installed incorrectly."

Parents have been asked to stop using the following cribs immediately:

• Jenny Lind cribs with a drop-side that are distributed by Evenflo Inc.

• Delta drop-side cribs, including all fixed and drop-side cribs that use wooden stabilizer bars to support the mattress. Delta has announced that the bars supporting the mattress can be installed upside down, causing the mattress platform to collapse.

• Bonavita, Babi Italia and ISSI drop-side cribs manufactured by LaJobi Inc.

• Jardine drop-side cribs imported by Toys R Us.

• Million Dollar Baby drop-side cribs.

• Simmons drop-side cribs.

• Child Craft brand stationary-side cribs and an unknown number of Child Craft brand drop-sides.

With the CPSC's announcement it brings the total number of drop-sided cribs recalled to 9 million over the past five years. At least 32 deaths of infants or toddlers have been reported to have been caused by drop-side cribs in the last decade, and number of serious injuries.

Drop-sides have been blamed in the deaths of at least 32 infants and toddlers since 2000. The cribs are suspected in another 14 infant fatalities during that time.

The Consumer Products Safety Commission can be found by clicking here.

Source: Washington Post

Walton Law Firm represent individuals who have been injured in all types of incidents, including injuries caused by defective products, auto accidents, worksite injuries, food poisoning, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call (760) 571-5500 for a free and confidential consultation.

The FDA is looking into several hundred allegations of serious side effects, including seven deaths since May 1, involving over-the-counter children's mediation, including Children's Tylenol, produced and distributed by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued recall notices for 40 commonly used children's pain and allergy medication, and announcing that some may have been improperly manufactured or contaminated.

Today FDA officials issued a notice urging parents to used generic alternatives to the mediations that were recalled, and congress has sprung into action, starting an investigation.

At Tylenol.com, Johnson and Johnson is instructing parents and caregivers with questions about the recall to call 1-800-962-5357 (Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time).

Below is a list of the recalled products and their lot numbers of the affected products.

Children's Tylenol Plus Cold MS Suspension 4 oz. Grape SBM041, SBM067, SCM037, SDM027, SEM109
Children's Tylenol Suspension 4oz. Grape SBM042, SCM015, SCM036, SDM034
Children's Tylenol Suspension 4oz. Bubble Gum SBM043, SBM044, SCM029
Children's Tylenol Suspension 4oz. Strawberry SBM045, SCM011, SCM030, SDM035
Infant’s Tylenol Grape Suspension Drops 1/4oz. SBM064, SCM033, SDM020
Infant's Tylenol Suspension 1/2oz. Cherry SBM065, SCM005, SCM006, SDM032
Children's Dye Free Suspension 4oz. Cherry SBM066, SCM068
Children's Tylenol Suspension 4oz. Cherry SBM068, SCM035, SCM070, SCM080, SDM005
Children's Tylenol Plus Cough & Runny Nose 4oz. Cherry SBM069, SBM070, SCM081, SDM006
Infant's Tylenol Suspension Drops 1/2oz. Grape* SCM012, SCM067, SDM007, SDM068
Children's Tylenol Plus Flu 4oz. Bubble Gum SCM013, SCM014, SCM069
Children's Tylenol Plus Cold Suspension 4oz. Grape SCM016, SFM024
Children's Tylenol Plus Cough/ST Suspension 4oz. Cherry SCM017
Infant's Tylenol Suspension Drops 1oz. Grape SCM082, SDM039, SDM040
Infant's Tylenol Dye Free Suspension 1oz. Cherry SCM083, SCM084, SDM008
Children’s Tylenol Pediatric Suspension 1oz. Cherry SDM064
Infant's Tylenol Suspension Drops 1oz. Cherry SDM038, SDM009
Children's Tylenol Plus Cold/Allergy 4oz. Bubble Gum SDM033
Infant's Tylenol Drops 1oz. Grape SDM078
Infant’s Tylenol Grape Suspension Drops H/G 1/2oz. SCM034
Children's Tylenol Suspension 4oz. Cherry, Hospital Govt. SDM028

The recall does not apply to Children's TYLENOL Meltaways and Junior Strength TYLENOL Meltaways.

Because of the reports of illness and death, Johnson & Johnson has suspended production at McNeil's facility in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, where the drugs were manufactured.

Click here to be taken to the Tylenol.com website.

Source: CNN.com

The product liability lawyers at Walton Law Firm represent individuals who have been injured in all types of incidents, including injuries caused by defective products, auto accidents, worksite injuries, food poisoning, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call (760) 571-5500 for a free and confidential consultation.

San Diego-based Infatino, the makers of the "Slingrider" and the "Wendy Bellissimo" baby slings, issued a recall of at least 1 million slings yesterday after several reports of infants dying because of the sling. The company said that customers should stop using the slings immediately, and offered replacement slings free of charge.

In early March, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a warning about the slings, stating that it had linked at least 14 deaths to the use of slings, most of them involving infants younger than five months old. CNN.com profiles two families that lost children purportedly because of the sling, one of whom has filed a lawsuit against Infatino for designing and distributing a defective product.

The CPSC issued the following statement:

"In the first few months of life, babies cannot control their heads because of weak neck muscles. The sling's fabric can press against an infant's nose and mouth, blocking the baby's breathing and rapidly suffocating a baby within a minute or two," the joint statement said. "Additionally, where a sling keeps the infant in a curled position bending the chin toward the chest, the airways can be restricted, limiting the oxygen supply. The baby will not be able to cry for help and can slowly suffocate."

Source: CNN.com

The San Diego personal injury and wrongful death lawyers at Walton Law Firm represent individuals who have been injured in all types of accidents, including auto accidents, product liability cases, worksite injuries, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call (760) 571-5500 for a free and confidential consultation.

The Orange County District Attorney's office has filed a civil lawsuit against Toyota Motor Company for "knowingly selling hundreds of thousands of vehicles" with defects to the acceleration system. Toyota's U.S. sales headquarters is in Torrance, but it has not yet received the complaint.

As a result of its well known accelerator problems, which infamously may have killed an entire San Diego family in August 2009, Toyota has recalled more than 6 million cars. U.S. regulators are now reporting at least 52 deaths associated with the problem, and currently there are 89 class actions lawsuits against Toyota, and many other individual personal injury and product liability claims.

Toyota is stating it is "mystified" by the most recent allegation of an accelerator mishap involving a Toyota Prius, previously not believe to have accelerator problems. James Sikes called 911 while traveling on I-8, claiming he could not slow down his Prius. After a long, harrowing drive, and with the help of CHP he was able to stop the car, which he said was accelerating on its own.

Since that high-profile incident, Sikes himself has become the focus of the story, and questions have been raised about the veracity of his claims. Not surprisingly, Sikes hired an attorney shortly after the incident, but has stated publically that he does not plan to sue. (related story)

Source: San Diego 6 News

The personal injury law firm of Walton Law Firm represents individuals who have been injured in all types of accidents, including auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, worksite injuries, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call (760) 571-5500 for a free consultation.

In 1996, Koua Fong Lee killed three people when, on his way home from church with his wife and daughter in the car, his Toyota Camry plowed into the rear of an Oldsmobile. At the time, Lee told police and prosecutors, and later a jury, he tried to stop his care but he couldn't. The jury didn't believe him and convicted him of manslaughter. He was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Now his case is being viewed differently. Relatives of the victims now believe Lee is innocent, and are planning to sue Toyota for the deaths. The prosecutor in the case believes the revelations about Toyota's accelerator problems support a second look at Lee's conviction. Lee has been steadfast in his innocence:

"I know 100 percent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible," Lee said from state prison. "When the brakes were looked at and we were told that nothing was wrong with the brakes, I was shocked."

A Toyota spokesman declined to comment on Lee's case.

Source: HuffingtonPost

The personal injury lawyers at Walton Law Firm represent individuals who have been injured in all types of accidents, including auto accidents, product liability cases, worksite injuries, pedestrian injuries, construction accidents, property injuries, and malpractice matters. Call (760) 571-5500 for a free and confidential consultation.

The New York Times has obtained a government report that concludes that the drug Avandia [aka Rosiglitazone], prescribed for diabetes, causes heart attacks and heart failure and should be removed from the market. According to the report, if every diabetic currently on Avandia were instead given Actos, an alternative drug, about 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure would be avoided every month.

Because of a multimillion dollar advertising blitz, Avandia was, at one time, one of the biggest selling drugs in the world. In 2006, sales of the drug totaled over $3 billion dollars. In 2007, however, a study by a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist suggested that the drug actually damaged the heart, and after a warning from the FDA, sales of the drug dropped dramatically. Despite the findings of heart damage, the drug stayed on the market when "an F.D.A. oversight board voted 8-7" too keep it on the market. (It would be interesting to know the politics at work behind that decision.)

“Rosiglitazone should be removed from the market,” concluded Dr. David Graham and Dr. Kate Gelperin of the FDA in the report obtained by the Times. GlaxoSmithKline, the drug's manufacturer, disagrees (of course). It has stated that Avandia has been thoroughly tested and that “scientific evidence simply does not establish that Avandia increases” the risk of heart attacks.

A bipartisan multiyear Senate investigation, which will release its report on Monday, will apparently harshly criticize GlaxoSmithKline for failing to warn patients years earlier that Avandia was potentially deadly. According to the forthcoming report from the Senate:

“[GlaxoSmithKline] executives attempted to intimidate independent physicians, focused on strategies to minimize or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk, and sought ways to downplay findings that a competing drug might reduce cardiovascular risk.”

Ultimately, this will be a story about the quest for profits at the expense of human lives.

Source: New York Times

The lawyers at Walton Law Firm represent individuals throughout San Diego County who have been injured in all types of incidents, including product defect claims, malpractice claims, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, an all other negligence induced incidents. Call (760) 571-5500 for a free consultation.

Content removed because Administrator got aprehensive. Imy.