Product Liability Cases

Published on: March 3, 2022

How Dangerous is Paraquat?

iStock-535505312
To save time and labor, farmers and agricultural workers often turn to herbicides to aid them in their agricultural work. For example, some herbicides like Paraquat aid them in exterminating overgrown weeds and other unwanted grasses. Unfortunately, while this may be beneficial to the farmer saving them time and money, Paraquat can have fatal consequences. Paraquat is an extremely poisonous herbicide that can lead to death if an individual or agricultural worker ingests it.

Paraquat can not even be purchased in the United States unless the applicator has a license for it. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified it as “restricted use.”. This herbicide has very tight restrictions due to the fact it’s highly poisonous. Unlike most other herbicides, Paraquat can’t be applied if the applicator does not have a license, even if they are under the supervision of someone who does. Paraquat is so dangerous that only licensed professionals are allowed to apply it on their crops.

Several safety precautions are taken to deter an individual from confusing Paraquat with a beverage or other liquid. In the United States, A blue dye and sharp odor are added to the liquid so that one doesn’t confuse it with other beverages as well as an added agent that causes vomiting if accidentally ingested. In addition, those who apply the product must wear extra protective equipment such as respiratory protection, safety glasses, and more. Those who mix and load Paraquat are required to wear full-face shields and chemical-resistant aprons.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 10, 2022

Paraquat Poisoning

By Carabin Shaw

iStock-1146896346
Paraquat, a toxic chemical herbicide used to exterminate unruly weeds and grass, has been highly popularized in its use and was first produced for commercial use in 1962. There are many brands of paraquat products, and some of these include, Gramoxone, Goldquat, Almoxone, and many more. Paraquat is extremely popular and is one of the most commonly used herbicides around the globe. However, due to its extremely high toxicity, many precautions have been taken to purchase and use this herbicide in the United States.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to put mitigation measures on the use of Paraquat to protect human health and the environment. Here’s a quote from the United States EPA website “In July 2021, after receiving and considering public comments on the Paraquat proposed interim decision, EPA released the interim decision for registration review. As part of this action, EPA requires mitigation measures to reduce risks associated with Paraquat in order to protect human health and the environment.”

Paraquat is so toxic that it can lead to death if accidentally ingested, and there is no antidote for it. Because it’s so toxic, in the U.S., precautions are taken, such as adding a dye to the substance and a sharp odor to deter an individual from accidentally ingesting it. Not only that, but only those with a commercial license can even purchase the product, let alone use it. In addition, An individual can not use this product even if they are under the supervision of a certified applicator.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 4, 2022

Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease

By Carabin Shaw

iStock-1207411602
What is Paraquat? Paraquat, also known as Gramoxone, is an herbicide primarily used for weed and grass management. However, According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), It is a toxic chemical. The CDC also states that the highly poisonous herbicide marketed to the United States has safeguards such as a blue dye, a sharp odor, and an added agent that induces vomiting if ingested. These safeguards are in place to warn potential users of its toxicity. Because this herbicide is so toxic and can lead to fatal poisoning, only licensed professionals can use it.

Why is Paraquat Used? The herbicide kills weeds and unwanted grasses because of its incredible effectiveness, which is why, in the United States, commercial farmers and agricultural workers have used this product to control their land’s unruly weeds and grass since 1964. Before harvest, it also is used as a defoliant on crops, such as cotton. There are many uses for this herbicide, but unfortunately, the consequences can be fatal.

How can you get poisoned by Paraquat? Acute poisoning can occur because of accidental ingestion, inhalation, or skin exposure by an individual. It can cause damage to the lungs, intestines, stomach, and mouth when ingested in small amounts, while in large quantities, it can damage multiple organs and lead to death within hours. The most common way of getting poisoning from this herbicide is by accidentally ingesting it. Unfortunately, there is no antidote after getting poisoned by this toxic chemical.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 4, 2022

What is Necrotizing Enterocolitis?

By Carabin Shaw

iStock-1321458945
You might be wondering what Necrotizing enterocolitis or NEC is. It is a common and severe intestinal condition among premature infants. It occurs when tissue in the large or small intestine is injured or inflamed. When the tissue gets damaged or inflamed, it may lead to the death of intestinal tissue and, sometimes, a hole (perforation) in the intestinal wall.

When an infant has NEC, the intestine can no longer hold waste. This may cause bacteria to find their way into the bloodstream and cause a deadly infection. In addition, waste could potentially enter into the infant’s abdomen and cause the infant to get critically ill. Because of all the damage sustained to the intestines, sections may die and need to get removed.

Symptoms of this potentially deadly disease include but are not limited to an unstable and low body temperature, apnea (pauses in breathing), being lethargic or less active, constipation, trouble feeding, and diarrhea.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 29, 2021

Court Finds Texas Has Jurisdiction to Hear Products Liability Lawsuit

By Carabin Shaw

The Supreme Court of Texas recently issued an opinion in a lawsuit against an insulation products company. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiffs built a home in Texas and purchased products from a spray foam insulation company. The insulation was designed to make the home quieter and energy efficient by sealing areas where air loss occurs. Shortly after the installation, the family began suffering from various ailments, including coughing spells, burning eyes, allergies, and headaches. The company advised the family that the spray foam smell would dissipate over time. The company then sent an “independent contractor” sales representative to inspect the property; however, the family never received the inspection results.

In response, the family filed a lawsuit against the spray foam company, alleging various claims, including products liability and negligence. They argued that their injuries arose from the sale and installation of the spray foam used in their home. In response, the company contended that because the company never sold or advertised any of the products in Texas, the state did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Further, they argued that they did not have any involvement with the company that inspected the property. The appeals court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Texas had either general or specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

Under Texas law, a court must have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties to issue a judgment. Texas courts can assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if the state’s long-arm statute permits exercising jurisdiction and comports with federal due-process guarantees. Specific jurisdiction applies when the defendant’s contact with the state is purposeful, and the cause of action arises from those contacts.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 17, 2021

BENZENE IN SUNSCREENS LINKED TO CANCER RISK–KILLER TAN CAN BE DEADLY

By Carabin Shaw

CANCER CAUSING BENZENE FOUND IN SUNSCREENS LINKED TO HIGHER RISK–KILLER TAN CAN BE DEADLY – 40 SUNSCREEN BRANDS RECALLED

July 17, 2021, San Antonio, Texas: Sunscreen products have been pulled from shelves across the country after they were found to contain significant amounts of benzene, a known carcinogen. Experts say any benzene exposure poses a health risk. Benzene has been linked to increased cancer risk since and had five times higher than normal risk of leukemia.

“There’s no such thing as a safe level of exposure, and that’s especially true for children,” said Philip Landrigan, director of the Global Public Health Program and Global Pollution Observatory at Boston College.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 23, 2021

Defective Product Lawsuits in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

Various state and federal agencies regulate the safety of infant and baby products. While these agencies possess the power to administer and enforce federal safety laws, many dangerous products continue to make their way into the consumer stream. Every year infants and children in Texas experience exposure to dangerous and potentially life-threatening products. When this occurs, family members should consider filing a Texas product liability claim against the defective product’s manufacturer or retailer.

For instance, Fisher-Price is once again recalling one of its most popular infant products. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission received reports citing the Rock n’ Glide Sleeper as the cause of four infants’ deaths. In each of the cases, the infants were placed unrestrained on their backs in the sleeper but were later found unresponsive on their stomachs. The deaths included infants ranging from 11 weeks to 4 months old. The current recall comes after a similar situation in 2019, in which the company agreed to recall its Rock’ n Play sleeper after several babies suffocated after rolling to their stomachs in the device.

Texas product liability lawsuits generally fall under one or more of the three types of defective product claims. The claims generally stem from design defects, failure to warn claims or manufacturing defects. Design defect claims apply when a product’s defective design poses a danger to the user. Claimants in these cases must establish that the company could have used a less dangerous design, the alternative design would not pose an unreasonable financial burden, and the alternative design would have maintained the product’s purpose and use. Failure to warn claims applies when a product poses an unreasonable danger even when used according to its directions. Finally, manufacturing defects claim that the product is defective because of an error that occurred during production.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 13, 2021

Supreme Court of Texas Upholds $15M Verdict in Product Liability Claim

By Carabin Shaw

activity-board-game-connection-desk-613508-300x200 The Supreme Court of Texas issued a decision in Emerson v. Johnson, upholding a multi-million dollar verdict in a Texas product liability lawsuit. The record indicates that the plaintiff, a highly experienced HVAC repairman, suffered severe burns to over 60% of his body while installing an HVAC unit. After an outdated and malfunctioning compressor in the unit exploded, the unit released scalding hot liquid all over the man. Despite the man’s HVAC experience, there was no way he could have known that the new compressor incorporated outdated technology inside the unit.

The man filed a product liability lawsuit against both the product’s manufacturer and an affiliate who designed and made the unit. He argued that the defendants defectively designed and manufactured the terminal and compressor. After a trial, a jury found that the older terminal design was unreasonably dangerous. The defendant asked the court to overturn the verdict based on legal sufficiency grounds or for a retrial because of a jury charge error.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendants’ case largely rested on their contention that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the terminal was unreasonably dangerous. A defective design inquiry requires the jury to find that the product is unreasonably dangerous as designed. The jury must consider the utility of the product and the risk of its use.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 27, 2021

Comparative Negligence in Texas Car Accidents Involving Autonomous Vehicles

By Carabin Shaw

Self-driving, or autonomous cars, are revolutionizing the way the public looks at travel and car ownership. These vehicles turn active drivers into passive passengers, allowing motorists to rely on the car’s advanced computerized system to navigate the roads and avoid collisions. However, these cars may result in a serious Texas car accident, as the new technology is still being refined.

Autonomous vehicles rely on complex computer systems, sensors, actuators, and various algorithms to operate on the roads without an active driver. In theory, these cars provide a glimpse into a more environmentally friendly and safer future for road users. However, as it is, these features often present more dangers than benefits.

For example, recently, a national news report described a fatal Tesla crash involving a driverless vehicle. According to reports, the vehicle did not have a driver and was operating on high or full automation mode. As such, one of the occupants was in the front passenger seat, and the other occupants were in the back seat. The car was speeding along a dangerous curve when it slammed into a tree. Emergency responders used over 30,000 gallons of water to put out the massive fire that the collision sparked. Tesla did not respond to this incident but previously stated that their vehicles are intended to be used with an attentive driver who has their hands on the steering wheel. However, safety officials argue that the company does not do enough to deter drivers from depending too much on the vehicle’s features.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 26, 2021

Texas Medication and Vaccine Injury Lawsuits

By Carabin Shaw

pexels-gustavo-fring-3985170-300x200 Vaccines are one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of infectious diseases throughout the world. The overwhelming majority of people who receive vaccines do not experience serious problems, and the benefits greatly outweigh the threat of risk. However, similar to the risks associated with natural supplements and other pharmaceuticals, some vaccine recipients may suffer adverse reactions. Depending on the nature and circumstance of the injury, victims may file a Texas medical malpractice or pharmaceutical error lawsuit. Further, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) provides compensation to individuals who have suffered injuries from certain vaccines.

Nearly 40 years ago, in response to growing lawsuits against medical providers and pharmaceutical companies, the federal government created the VICP. The creation followed a slew of lawsuits stemming from some parents’ beliefs that certain vaccines resulted in injuries to their children. Many companies halted the production of vaccines because of the onslaught of lawsuits. The vaccine shortage posed a serious threat to the nation’s health. As such, the VICP fund works to compensate those who suffer injuries because of a reaction to a childhood vaccine.

The VICP only covers certain vaccines such as those that prevent diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, rotavirus, and varicella. If a Texas injury victim or their loved ones believe that they suffered a vaccine error, they should contact an attorney to file a petition through the VICP. Currently, the program does not cover the COVID-19 vaccine; however, some sources have reported that Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccinations may result in a rare clotting condition. Federal officials have halted the use of the pharmaceutical company’s vaccine to determine, what if any, the vaccine plays in the clotting condition. In many cases, a person’s reaction to a medication or vaccine is not because of a defect in the vaccine or medication but rather an allergic reaction that a medical provider missed.

Continue reading →