Amusement Park Injuries

The recent story about a news reporter's injury while trying out a new ride at Lost Valley, a ski area in Auburn, Maine, raises all of the issues associated with cases against amusement parks. First, neither the host site nor the ride manufacturer had sought a license for the new ride, and both claimed that they "didn't know" that either a license or a safety inspection of the ride were required. Second, the ride a Zorb, is a new form of attraction, at least in the USA. The basic idea is that the riders are sealed inside an inflated, clear plastic ball and rolled downhill. The problem is that the ride idea, the downhill course at Lost Valley, the seller of the ride (apparently), and the park owner were all new. The reporter fractured her back on a test ride (made available for publicity) before the park even opened. With little operating experience to draw on, those responsible for the safety of riders made a string of horrible decisions. Hindsight may be 20/20, but it wouldn't have taken much foresight to guess that the unlicensed, uninspected, ride down a new course with new equipment and new operators might bring trouble. The third point to be made about this case and all other amusement park cases is that while the negligence of the operator may stand out clearly from the beginning, it is important to remember the product liability piece of the case, too. What standards have been promulgated by the amusement industry for this ride? What design analysis did the seller undertake with respect to not only the vehicle/safety restraints aspect of the ride but also the track or ridepath? What instructions, warnings and on-site testing were provided? Product defect theories may be very important, because they can survive comparative fault and "release" arguments that may be made by the ride operator. Release may be an issue where the rider buys a ticket that includes a release of liability.

Lead In Toys - New Studies Help Prove Damages

There has been a spate of recent recalls of toys and other children's products due to high lead levels. Two recent studies provide new proof of the danger in lead exposure during childhood. The studies, and a commentary by David C. Bellinger of Harvard Medical School, can be read in the May 27, 2008 edition of PLoS Medicine, and can be seen at http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050115
The studies used data collected in poor neighborhoods in Cincinnati beginning in 1979. Blood samples from pregnant mothers and their children were tested for lead levels over several years, and then the children were followed into early adulthood. The first study evaluated brain size in the young adults, and concluded that higher childhood lead levels could be correlated with smaller brain size. The second found that as childhood lead level increased, total arrests and arrests for violent crime also increased. The brain size study is the first to use brain imaging technology to show the harm associated with lead poisoning. Both studies may be helpful in proving damages in lead exposure cases.

ski binding release failure

When considering a ski binding failure case:

-always suspect the retailer/ski shop first. If there is a problem it is likely to be an adjustment problem;

-never put the ski boot into the binding as an informal "test" of the system. You may alter or destroy important information about the condition of the boot/binding interface;

-preserve the evidence by storing skis and boots in separate bags so that important parts do not scrape, rub or bang together;

-try to locate exemplar boots, skis and bindings and buy them for test purposes;

-screen potential experts carefully;

-consider the seriousness of the injuries. What would it really take to help the client? These can be expensive cases to pursue.

IIHS Roof Strength Study and Testimony

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has released information confirming what plaintiff's lawyers have argued for years: passengers are safer in rollover accidents when the vehicle's roof does not crush, or intrude into the passenger space. In testimony before Congress and in reports issued in May and June of 2008, details are provided about studies that show how roof strength reduces injuries in rollover accidents involving sedans and SUVs. See the testimony of Stephen Oesch at http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony_2008-06-04.pdf

Taser Loses Product Liability Lawsuit

Taser Loses 1st Product-Liability Suit; Jury Awards $6 Million By Margaret Cronin Fisk June 7 (Bloomberg) -- Taser International Inc. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=TASR%3AUS <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=TASR%3AUS> , the largest stun-gun maker, lost a $6.2 million jury verdict over the death of a California man who died after police shot him multiple times with the weapon. The defeat is the first for Taser in a product- liability claim. A San Jose, California, jury yesterday said Taser had failed to warnpolice in Salinas, California, that prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device could cause a risk of cardiac arrest. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $5.2 million in punitive damages to the estate of Robert Heston, 40, and his parents. The jury clearedthe police officers of any liability. The lawsuit is Heston v. City of Salinas, C 05-03658 JW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Automobile Defect Litigation

Read John Sedgewick’s recent article discussing how to identify product liability claims in one-car crashes, available in the latest edition of the Berman & Simmons Newsletter, In Brief: http://www.bermansimmons.com/pdf/newsletter/BS08027-newsletter-tc19.pdf.

As Attorney Sedgewick points out, just because a crash involves only one car does not mean compensation is impossible. If the way in which the vehicle was designed or manufactured caused the crash or led to a more serious injury than would otherwise have occurred, it may be possible to recover damages from the manufacturer, distributor or local dealer. The questions to ask are whether the accident or injury would have been avoided had the car performed as a reasonable consumer would have expected it to perform under the circumstances, and whether the car lacked available safety features.

In order to investigate the possibility of a defect claim, it is critical that the vehicle be retained, and not altered, following the accident. It is best to store the vehicle indoors, where it is secure and not subject to the elements. If you believe you may have an auto defect claim, you should contact at attorney immediately to ensure that the critical evidence is preserved.