Thursday, February 17, 2011

Headline: Meat Grinders Can Sever Fingers

Failure to warn claims are commonplace in products liability litigation. In an era of increasing frivolity, plaintiffs often attempt to expand the extent to which a manufacturer must warn of potential injury. Recently, with a new law suit, a North Dakota woman is testing the outer limits of a manufacturer’s duty to warn after severing her fingers in a commercial-grade meat grinder.

The Grand Forks Herald reports that in November 2007 the plaintiff was pushing venison into a Pragotrade (the company has since changed its name to “Weston”) meat grinder as she aided her husband in his meat-processing business. Allegedly, a screw caught the tip of at least one of her gloved fingers and pulled her hand into the grinder – severing four fingers. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed suit against Pragotrade, the alleged manufacturer (Pragotrade has apparently denied that it was the manufacturer, but admitted to participating in the design of the product), and Cabela’s, the retail store in which it was purchased. The report did not specify the jurisdiction in which this suit was filed.

According to our research into the matter, the plaintiff alleges that the grinder’s 2 3/4 inch chute was too large and that it lacked sufficient safety warnings. The plaintiff admits that she declined to use the manufacturer-supplied plastic plunger to push the meat into the grinder. Unfortunately, because meat stuck to the plunger, she opted to use her hands.

In addition, the plaintiff admits that the grinder contained a warning, along with a diagram, to keep fingers out of the chute. However, she alleges that the warning was inadequate because it was not visible during the normal use of the grinder. While her allegations may be correct, the plaintiff omits one obvious piece of evidence – she was using a meat grinder. Admittedly, we here at Abnormal Use have not been privy to the meat grinding process. We assume, however, that the process of grinding meat involves sharp objects and the potential for serious injury. No diagrams are necessary.

In this most litigious of eras, it should come as no surprise that the she has attempted to shift the blame for her loss. There are not enough facts in the record to gauge the merits of any design defect claim, but it is interesting that the Plaintiff has elected to allege that the warning was inadequate. Apparently, there are no allegations that the warning was unclear – only that it wasn’t visible during the grinder’s operation. Given that the grinder’s chute was only 2 3/4 inches large and covered in meat during its operation, we are curious as to where the plaintiff would propose the warning be placed. Moreover, there must come some point at which the dangers of using a product become open and obvious. If a machine is sufficient to grind meat, it should surprise no one that it is also sufficient to damage inserted body parts.
posted by
Post the first comment
Tags: ,
Tuesday, February 15, 2011

No Duty To Warn Of The Hazards of Cleaning Hazard-Protecting Equipment

This past December, the Court of Appeals of Washington reversed a trial court’s denial of several respirator manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that they failed to warn him of the dangers of asbestos exposure while cleaning respirators designed to protect against asbestos. Macias v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 244 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Mine Safety Appliances Company, American Optical Corporation, and North Safety Products USA (collectively “respirator manufacturers”) manufactured respirators that could protect against a variety of contaminants dependent upon the contaminant-specific filter cartridge selected by the user. The plaintiff worked as a tool keeper at a Seattle shipyard, and as part of his duties, he was responsible for cleaning respirators after they were returned by shipyard workers at the end of their shifts. After working in the shipyard for over twenty-five years and handling hundreds of dirty respirators on a daily basis, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma and commenced this action against the respirator manufacturers.

The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn him of the dangers of asbestos exposure. In response, the respirator manufacturers argued that they had no duty to warn of the dangers associated with asbestos in another company’s product. In support of their argument, the manufacturers cited the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 197 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2008), holding that the duty to warn is “limited to those in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product.”

The Court agreed with the respirator manufacturers and held that they did not have a duty to warn, neither under a negligence or strict liability theory, because the manufacturers did not manufacture, sell, or supply the asbestos and did not control the type of contaminants used at the shipyard. While the plaintiff argued that the court should consider the purpose of the product in its duty to warn analysis, the Court rejected the notion that a product manufacturer should have a duty to warn of the dangers of a hazardous substance when its product is designed for the purpose of protecting against those very hazards.

Even though the manufacturers should have expected, as pointed out in the concurring opinion, that those who perform the necessary cleaning of the respirators would be exposed to the hazardous substances which had been absorbed, the plaintiff should have also expected that he would have been exposed to asbestos as he was cleaning the respirators of the substance against which it was designed to protect. Manufacturers should not be expected to warn against every conceivable hazard created by others’ products especially when the purpose of the manufactured product is to protect against those hazards.

While we here at Abnormal Use have been known to venture into the outdoors with the UV-protection afforded by a decent pair of polarized sunglasses, we wouldn’t expect Costa Del Mar to warn us of the dangers of the sun exposure we undoubtedly will receive to the rest of our faces when we neglect to wear sun screen. Even though this opinion did not expressly create a duty on behalf of the consumer, consumers must recognize that there comes a point with the use of any product at which the manufacturer’s duty to warn must end and the user’s common sense must take over.
posted by
Post the first comment
Tags: ,
Tuesday, February 1, 2011

An Open Letter to "Joe Consumer" of The Pop Tort blog

Dear Mr. Joe Consumer,

As relatively new legal bloggers, we can attest that few things bring as much gratification as the acknowledgment that our work is being read by our distinguished colleagues. Imagine our excitement here at Abnormal Use upon learning that you, a contributor to The Pop Tort legal blog, not only read last week’s Hot Coffee post, but took time away from your fight against dirty corporate disinformation campaigns to write your own retort. As you may know, we were pleased to present some basic background facts regarding the new Hot Coffee documentary and the ties of its producer Susan Saladoff to the Plaintiffs’ bar. We’re elated to engage in further dialogue about the film and the issues it presents with you, a writer at blog we’ve read for years. We think that additional discussion on the film, and the infamous Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee litigation, is truly a boon to public discourse. So, today, we write this thank you note.

Thank you, Mr. Consumer. We owe you much, for your reply provided us with an opportunity to engage in a bit of soul searching and introspection. In the circles in which you travel, you may have heard the vicious rumors that we defense attorneys are soulless, but this is simply not true.

So, thank you for pointing out our corporate bias. We suspect that The Pop Tort, a project of the Center for Justice and Democracy, would never attempt to inject its own ideological agenda into its film commentary – especially a film in which its founder and executive director appeared.

Thank you also for alerting the blogosphere that we have not yet seen the Hot Coffee documentary. We agree that the plainly evident disclaimer of that fact we placed in our original piece may not have been apparent to readers. Despite the fact that we made no representations that we saw the film, it is easy to see how our readers would think we were presenting an actual review of the documentary and not a commentary on the filmmaking team’s potential agenda.

Thank you also for citing to actual Hot Coffee reviews from more “responsible” film critics. Fortunately, you located non-lawyer reviewers untainted by a legal education and the perils of the legal profession. By mentioning only the fact that the filmmaker is an attorney (and omitting any reference to her long career suing large corporations), these reviewers offered truly objective reviews based on the facts as told by Saladoff without referencing other pesky info and context.

Thank you also for halting our “dirty corporate disinformation.” Shame on us for presenting the information in our accompanying FAQ file taken directly from such unreliable sources as pleadings, deposition transcripts, and contemporary news accounts of the case. Shame on us for giving anyone the impression that coffee is best served at McDonald’s temperatures. Shame on us for becoming so caught up in the facts that we neglected to see your truth. After all, as the old writer once said, “[f]acts and truth really don’t have much to do with each other.”

Thank you for putting a stop to our attempt to relitigate the original Stella Liebeck lawsuit. Apparently, we momentarily forgot the well-established principle that once a court or jury renders its decision, all criticism must end. We momentarily forgot that no one wants to hear the losers “whining” about how the case should have been decided. Certainly, our friends at The Pop Tort would never commit such a horrible offense. The winners win the day, and they must be protected from those looking to revise history. Please forgive us this transgression.

Most of all, in light of our errors in judgment, we appreciate that you did not mention our blog’s name or our writer Nick Farr’s name in your post. We would hate for our reputations to be further sullied by last week’s abomination. If only the etiquette of the blogosphere would allow us to remove our original post from the Internet permanently! We remain crestfallen.

Finally, Mr. “Joe Consumer,” we must commend you on your own staid personal transparency and straight-forward, no-nonsense approach to legal commentary. You are an example to us all.

Sincerely,

Abnormal Use

posted by
Comments (1)
Tags: , ,
Monday, January 24, 2011

Spill the Beans: The Truth Behind Susan Saladoff’s "Hot Coffee" Documentary

Everyone knows the tale of the New Mexico jury that awarded an octogenarian Plaintiff nearly $3 million after she spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee into her lap at the drive through. In 1994, that verdict became the talk of the nation and the poster child for tort reform. Since that time, the case has become the legal community’s most infamous urban legend. However, most Americans probably wouldn’t recognize Plaintiff Stella Liebeck’s name; fewer realize that the large award of damages was ultimately reduced to approximately $800,000 by the trial court. The story of the hot coffee case – much like a childhood game of “telephone” – has been told and re-told so many times that the line between truth and myth has become indistinguishable.

Tonight, at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, filmmaker Susan Saladoff premieres her new film, Hot Coffee, a documentary on the Liebeck case and the status of America’s civil justice system. But who is Susan Saladoff, and is her documentary an objective telling of legal history?

We think it’s important for filmgoers and, perhaps most importantly, film critics writing about the film, to be fully aware of the background of the filmmaker behind this effort. Saladoff is not the typical documentary filmmaker. She spent 25 years representing plaintiffs in personal injury, medical malpractice, and products liability actions. Long before anyone heard the name “Stella Liebeck,” Saladoff served as a member and officer of many trial lawyer groups. Since 1983, she has been an active member (and past President) of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (“TLPJ“) – an organization that has launched a campaign “designed to expose, challenge, and defeat the assault now taking place on the right to a day in court.” According to the TLPJ’s official website, the group fights against those who seek to close “courthouse doors so victims can’t hold the powerful accountable.” In addition, Saladoff was active in the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (which has since changed its name to the American Association for Justice), serving as the Co-Chair for the Constitutional Litigation Committee. Much like the Hot Coffee trailer, AAJ suggests that oil and pharmaceutical companies spent millions to manufacture a purported myth that lawsuits are “out of control” and that the Liebeck case is the proof of that fact.

We’re thinking that this might not be the most objective documentary on the subject.

Given her background, Saladoff has reason to fight against the public perception of the Liebeck case as an example of the civil justice system run amok. In fact, she recently told IndieWIRE that “unbiased” juries are now elusive because prospective jurors believe that “injured people [are] trying to cash-in on so-called ‘jackpot justice,'” a view prompted by the Liebeck case. With Hot Coffee, she also seeks to warn that citizens “are giving up their Constitutional rights every day without even knowing it.” These are not the views of an objective filmmaker.

The documentary’s cast list is composed of prominent plaintiff’s attorneys, law professors, and public officials. We doubt that Kenneth Wagner, counsel for Liebeck herself, will concede that any coffee served over 140 degrees could result in third-degree burns similar to those sustained by his client. It is unlikely that Alex Winslow, executive director of a consumer advocacy organization, will reference the National Coffee Association’s statement that McDonald’s coffee conformed to industry standards. (“Scalding Coffee Debate: When Does Java Become Lava?,” The Palm Beach Post, September 7, 1994, available at 1994 WLNR 1466981 (originally printed in The Wall Street Journal). We suspect that no interviewee will quote coffee connoisseur and Costa Rica coffee plantation owner William McAlpin’s opinion that coffee is best served at 175 degrees. (Id.). Finally, we do not expect Joanne Doroshow, founder and executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, to mention the numerous other courts placing legal responsibility on the spiller rather than the maker of the coffee.

To her credit, Saladoff did interview Victor Schwartz, co-author of the case book, Cases and Materials on Torts, and general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association. However, if the film features other tort reform advocates, she did not list them on her website. In a recent interview with Filmmaker, Saladoff claimed that her requests to interview Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich were declined. Interestingly, she made no mention of any attempts to interview McDonald’s representatives. Apparently, that type of balance wasn’t a huge priority since, according to Saladoff, we’ve “already heard the other side” of the story.

We are left with only one question – why? If Saladoff truly desired to debunk the purported myths of the Liebeck case, why limit that exploration to those who share her views and background? Even if opposing viewpoints damage her position, they at least give the audience the opportunity to decide for themselves what is myth and what is fact. As friend of the blog and Overlawyered contributor Ted Frank once noted, the Plaintiffs’ bar has been forced to spin certain facts to portray Liebeck’s case as meritorious. They consciously avoid the fact that the temperature of Liebeck’s coffee was within industry standards and, in fact, perfectly normal. It was actually at a lower temperature than many coffees enjoyed by consumers today. As Frank correctly observes, Plaintiffs’ lawyers are forced to rely on obscure and misleading data to conceal Liebeck’s own contributory negligence. In so doing, they invoke 700 complaints made about coffee temperature, but those 700 complaints come from a total of billions of cups sold.

But who wants to watch a film with such pesky little details?

Apparently, not Ms. Saladoff.

Full Disclosure: We’ve not yet seen the film, although we requested an advance screener from both Saladoff and her publicity agent. Further, we asked for an interview with Saladoff, and although that request was initially granted and the interview scheduled, Saladoff canceled the interview several days before it was to occur and has not responded to subsequent queries.

For additional reading, check out this online biography of Ms. Saladoff from her old law firm.

UPDATE: Read our Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ.

posted by
Comments (34)
Tags: , , ,
Monday, January 17, 2011

TV Review: NBC’s "Harry’s Law" with Kathy Bates

Television showrunner David E. Kelley (“Ally McBeal,” “The Practice,” “Boston Legal”) has a new legal drama, “Harry’s Law,” starring Kathy Bates, which premieres tonight on NBC at 10/9 Central. We here at Abnormal Use were able to pull some strings with our many Hollywood connections and score an advance screener of the series’ first two episodes, and we liked what we saw (especially since it takes many, many cues from Kelley’s recently departed “Boston Legal”).

Before reviewing the pilot episode, we must disclose that we have always been fans of Kelley’s oeuvre. Even when we were slumbering through psychology and biochemistry classes without even the slightest thought of attending law school, we rather enjoyed watching Ally McBeal dealing with the stress of working in a law firm with her childhood boyfriend. Once we made that fateful and immutable decision to attend law school, Denny Crane and Alan Shore in “Boston Legal” had us looking forward to those days when we too would be sharing cigars on the office balcony after a long day of legal shenanigans. Given our love for a good David E. Kelley legal drama, we were thrilled to obtain an advance screener of “Harry’s Law.“

So much for objectivity.

Written by Kelley and directed by Bill D’Elia, the pilot was a fun bit of television. With only minor, minor spoilers, the basic premise is as follows: Harriet Korn, a highly successful attorney, is fired from her plush Cincinnati mega-firm after expressing her disgust and boredom with the everyday monotony of her patent work. (Possibly Kelley’s most realistic premise to date). Following a series of miraculous events, Korn establishes “Harriet’s Law and Fine Shoes” in an area of town not likely to be highlighted by the chamber of commerce. (Harriet’s firm also peddles, at the insistence of Korn’s legal assistant, Jenna Backstrom (Brittany Snow), a fine assortment of Prada and Jimmy Choo’s footwear left over from the previous tenant, who apparently abandoned a sizable inventory.). Along with Backstrom, Korn hires Adam Branch (Nathan Corddry), a young, over-the-top patent lawyer, who joins the firm after inadvertently striking Korn with his Mercedes, and Malcolm Davies (Aml Ameen), an aspiring college-student who literally falls upon Korn during a suicide leap following his third drug charge. “Harriet’s Law and Fine Shoes” begins its sojourn into criminal defense with Korn representing Davies on his drug charge and Branch representing Damien Winslow (Johnny Ray Gill) after Winslow’s “protective services” result in a bullet in the leg of an alleged armed robber.

As attorneys, it is rather easy to identify all the inaccuracies of “Harry’s Law.” For starters, the sale of expensive footwear out of a law practice must surely violate ethical principle (although we can’t recall any specific examples from the MPRE). However, if such a thing is ethically permissible, Kelley may have solved an issue for firms seeking to escape the economic conundrum. Aside from the ethical pickle of shoe sales, Kelley paints an idealized picture of the practice of law – not as it actually exists. Legal rules are often cast aside in order to turn cases into a platform for social issues rather than a means to resolve a suit. During the course of the Davies’ trial, Korn opines on the benefits of legalizing drugs. Korn offers her opinion, not during the scope of an objection, but rather as an open monologue in the midst of the prosecutor’s (Paul McCrane) cross-examination of her client. Following this soliloquy, she then argues for jury nullification during her closing statement. In so doing, she urges the members of the jury to offer her just one not-guilty vote despite her lack of any legal defense. Korn claims there is “no justice in the law,” but we here at Abnormal Use believe there is more to law than winning and losing.

That said, Kelley succeeds in filling the void left by the absence of “Boston Legal” from the airwaves. “Harry’s Law” provides a new cast of characters carrying-on in the footsteps of Legal‘s Shore and Crane. As Korn, Bates delivers her best performance since the car-smashing, “I’m older and have more insurance” days of 1991’s Fried Green Tomatoes. (By the way, wouldn’t you have hated to be the adjuster who informed her that she wasn’t covered due to her policy’s intentional acts exclusion?). As Branch, Corddry dazzles, reminiscent of the infamous Alan Shore, using an arraignment hearing as a soapbox to highlight the neglect of inner-city populations. (Just wait until he stands up to the egotistical, television ad plaintiff’s lawyer in next week’s “Heat of Passion” episode).

Kelley’s shows work because of his ability to create quirky, non-stereotypical lawyers to highlight contemporary issues using litigation as an effective backdrop. Though lawyers may recoil at some of the perceived inaccuracies, non-lawyers will find that it makes for great television. “Harry’s Law” tiptoes that fine line between what the law is (at least according to Kelley) and what the law should be (again, according to Kelley). With such an approach, it’s easy to draw viewers into the alleged war between social and legal justice (although favorable depictions of large corporate defendants are unlikely given his track record).

“Harry’s Law” does not preach that the practice is nothing but a cutthroat all-or-nothing business at the expense of social justice, any more than “Grey’s Anatomy” purports that every nurse or surgical resident beds another while patients await in the next room. (Seriously, that much intra-hospital action can’t seriously be going on can it?). While it is not a realistic portrayal of the courtroom, “Harry’s Law” is a witty, thought-provoking indulgence into the realm of social justice.

posted by
Post the first comment
Tags:
Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Allegedly Ambiguous Warning Fails to Insulate Manufacturer from Design Defect Claims

In a recent indemnity action brought by a residential care facility for the severely developmentally disabled against a plumbing company and a mixing valve manufacturer, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s manufacturing and design defect claims. Res-Care, Inc. v. Roto-Rooter Servs. Co., — F. Supp.2d —, No. C-09-03856, 2010 WL 4367219 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2010). The plaintiff commenced the action after settling a lawsuit for $8.5 million with the conservator of one of its residents who was badly scalded during a shower at the plaintiff’s facility.

Defendant, Leonard Valve Company (“Leonard”), manufactured a Leonard Valve Model 110 tempering valve (“the valve”) that was attached to the water heater at the plaintiff’s facility. A warning label placed in the product catalog and affixed to the valve itself indicated that the valve was not to be used for “direct showering and bathing applications,” should not be considered an “anti-scald device,” and should be inspected every six to twelve months. Leonard designed the valve in the 1950’s, and it had never been certified to meet any industry standards. The plaintiff was unsure of the age of the valve, but estimated that it had been installed in 1995. At any rate, the valve was visibly present and attached to the showering line when a plumber replaced the hot water heater at the plaintiff’s facility in 2004, approximately one week prior to the scalding. Following the accident, the valve was found to be corroded and likely inoperable for at least two months.

While the Court began its opinion by ruling in favor of Leonard on the plaintiff’s manufacturing defect claim citing a lack of evidence that the valve was not installed as an anti-scald device, Leonard’s fortunes quickly deteriorated. Despite Leonard’s argument that its warnings reduced the likelihood of injury and the fact that the valve had not been inspected for nearly ten years (contrary to the valve’s specific instructions to do so every six to twelve months), the Court held there to be a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s design defect claim finding little evidence to show that the benefits of the Model 110 valve design outweighed the risk of danger.

Further, the Court held that there was at least a triable issue of fact as to whether the warning attached to the valve was ambiguous. The plaintiff argued that the phrase “direct showering or bathing application” was ambiguous by presenting evidence that the experienced plumber was unable to decipher the meaning of the phrase. While it could be argued that the definition of “bath” could encompass anything from a simple handwashing to a complex soak in the tub, it is interesting that the Court and the experienced plumber could assign an ambiguous meaning to the phrase “direct showering.” Apparently, the Court was aware of a line of cases assigning ambiguous meanings to unambiguous terms which the counsel for Leonard was not privy.

Had Leonard been aware of the Court’s opinion on the adequacy of its warning label, perhaps it would not have insisted on further relying upon it in defense of its argument for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligent design claim. Unfortunately for Leonard, the Court, in denying Leonard’s motion, held that warnings are not relevant in determining whether a manufacturer breached a duty to design a safe product and relied instead on the evidence that Leonard never considered an alternative design and failed to test to industry standards.

Lost in this discussion is the fact that the plaintiff not only failed to maintain the valve, contrary to Leonard’s instructions, but also knew at least five days prior to the incident that the water temperature was wildly fluctuating and still elected to place a severely developmentally disabled resident into the shower. This case demonstrates that despite instructions on the proper use of a product that may appear clear and unambiguous (at least to the average products liability legal blog contributor), a manufacturer can never be entirely certain that its product is not going to be misused by even the most “sophisticated” consumer.
posted by
Comments (2)
Tags: ,
Monday, January 3, 2011

Cost-Effective Remedies Not Sufficient to Prevent Ban on Drop-Side Cribs

After recalling more than 11 million dangerous cribs over the last three years, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC“) recently approved, effective June 2011, new mandatory safety standards for baby cribs and issued a ban on the manufacture and sale of cribs with drop-down sides. Childcare facilities and hotels have 24 months from the publication of the rule to institute compliant cribs into their facilities. Reports of at least 32 infant strangulation and suffocation deaths since 2000 associated with drop-side cribs prompted the CPSC’s decision.

USA Today reports that prior to the CPSC announcement over 900 incident reports were filed with 14 crib companies indicating that drop-side cribs were falling apart, injuring and killing infants. The combination of malfunctioning hardware, cheap plastics, and problems in assembly would cause the crib’s drop-side rail to detach creating a “V”-like gap and potential “suffocation zone” between the mattress and the side rail.
In response to past recalls, crib manufacturers such as LaJobi and Delta offered free “retrofit” kits to customers to immobilize the drop-side railings. While an immobilized railing deprives the user of the potential benefit of a drop-side crib, there is no evidence that the retrofit conversion kits are ineffective in remedying the safety concerns. Unfortunately, as CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum indicated in her statement [PDF] on crib safety before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, there are still “far too many parents who have not responded to recall announcements.” Even with the lack of recall response, we must question the necessity of an absolute ban which places childcare facilities in a financial quandary during an era of economic uncertainty when cost-effective measures could be taken to alleviate the potential hazards of drop-side cribs. Certainly, childcare facilities would opt for a free retrofit kit when faced with the choice of bearing the expense of replacement costs.
We here at Abnormal Use would never advocate for the continued presence of a product in the marketplace that poses potential serious injury to children. If I discovered that my daughter’s “Handy Manny Talking Tool Box” was defective and posed a serious safety hazard (besides the threat to her father’s sanity after hearing its catchy jingle repetitively), I too would become a persistent voice in the ear of the CPSC. However, a total ban on drop-side cribs only serves to alleviate an alleged design defect at the expense of the consumer.
On one hand, the CPSC is justified in its pursuit of improving crib safety standards. After all, these standards had not been revised since 1982. On the other hand, child care facilities are left to shoulder the burden of these changes when a cost-effective measure could have cured the problem. Presenting childcare facilities with the choice of either complying with the recall or bearing the replacement costs of new cribs would have protected these facilities and still achieved the desired outcome of child safety.
Through this decision, the CPSC is placing manufacturers on notice that it will not tolerate repeated massive recalls of products that pose serious threats to the safety of their users even when a cost-effective measure may be taken to remedy the design defect. Unfortunately, at this time, the CPSC decision still leaves me having to take my own draconian measures to protect myself from the serenade of Handy Manny and his toolbox.
posted by
Post the first comment
Tags: ,

« Previous Page