Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective Products

Portable Air Compressors Recalled Due to Fire and Electrical Hazards

Jenny Albano — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:09:56 GMT

Advance Stores Co., in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling about 64,000 Strike Force Portable Air Compressors due to fire and electrical hazards.

The compressor's motor can overheat and ignite the protective cover, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Also, the cover might not prevent internal components from being touched, which poses an electrical shock hazard. The firm has received four reports of fires. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled air compressor is a 4.6 gallon, 3.5 HP Strike Force and includes the following model and serial numbers:
BMM2524 (25254) JWAPC4005xxxxxxxxx
AC251FT (2516) YFJAC4005xxxxxxxxxx
APC4005 (4005) CSCC4005xxxxxxxxxxx
The portable air compressor has black twin air tanks and all the model and serial numbers can be found on the compressor's housing.

The recalled product was available only at Advanced Auto Parts stores across the United States and at www.partsamerica.com from October 2006 to December 2007.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Sailing (U.S.) International Corp. Recalls Flashing Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard

Jenny Albano — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:15:37 GMT

Sailing (U.S.) International Corp., in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling about 8,000 Flashing Pacifiers or 2-in-1 Flashing Pacifiers with Whistle Necklaces because the nipple can detach from the base, which can pose a choking hazard for children.

The recalled pacifier necklace has a 28-inch multicolored cord with a 3- inch plastic pacifier that comes in assorted colors. A hole at the tip of the nipple is used as a blow hole for the whistle. The pacifier handle operates as the on-off button for the flashing light on both pacifiers. "Flashing Pacifier" or "2-in-1 Flashing Pacifier with Whistle Necklace" is printed on the packaging of the pacifiers.

So far no injuries have been reported to Sailing (U.S.) International Corp. The flashing pacifiers were sold retail stores across the nation during June 2007. The product was manufactured in China.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

FDA Examines Lipsticks for Lead

Jenny Albano — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:55:32 GMT

The FDA is investigating claims that certain lipsticks contain lead. Officials from the agency stated that similar claims in the past have not been confirmed.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said that a third of the 33 red lipsticks examined by an independent lab contained a level of lead exceeding 0.1 parts per million -- which is the FDA's limit for lead in candy. The FDA does not set a limit for lead in lipstick.

The group's report, called "A Poison Kiss: The Problem of Lead in Lipstick" found that the following brands contained lead: L'Oreal's Colour Riche "True Red" and "Classic Wine", Cover Girl Incredifull Lipcolor "Maximum Red", Christian Dior Addict "Positive Red", and Maybelline's Moisture Extreme "Cocoa Plum" and "Midnight Red".

The organization's goal of the study is to pressure companies to take the toxic chemicals out of consumer products and replace them with safe alternatives. The claims are generally not supported by the FDA's analysis, but the agency is going to look into the specific details for this case.

According to the trade association, it has been recognized that there are small amounts of lead in some lipsticks, but the lead generally is not known about and is unintentionally added.

"Consumers are exposed daily to lead when they eat, drink water and breathe the air. The average amount of lead a woman would be exposed to when using cosmetics is 1,000 times less than the amount she would get from eating, breathing, and drinking water that meets Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standards," said John Bailey, an executive vice president at the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Avoid Online Red Yeast Rice; Contains Lovastatin

Courtney Mills — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:19:50 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to consumers not to purchase three types of red yeast rice products from online suppliers. These products are called Red Yeast Rice, Red Yeast Rice/Policosonal Complex, and Cholestrix. Red Yeast Rice is sold by Swanson Healthcare Products, Inc., and manufactured by Nature's Value, Inc. Cholestrix is sold by Sunburst Organics.

The FDA has determined through careful analysis and consideration that these products all contain lovastatin, an active pharmaceutical ingredient in the prescription drug Mevacor, indicated for the treatment of high cholesterol.

FDA in a news release the agency advised that it had sent letters to both companies encouraging them to pull the red yeast products from the marketplace, or risk further enforcement action by the FDA.

Red yeast rice is a preparation of rice that has been fermented by red yeast, Monascus purpureus. Used for many centuries in China and Japan for its salutary properties, red yeast rice has recently been discovered by American scientists and has emerged as a staple in America among certain groups for lowering their blood cholesterol.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

No Salmonella in True Leaf Farm's Spring Mix

Jenny Albano — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:13:46 GMT

True Leaf Farms LLC has announced that the sample of spring mix and arugula that had tested presumptive positive for potential salmonella contamination was found to be incorrect and due to a laboratory error. The laboratory informed the company of the error ans stated that the test should have come back negative.

In addition, True Leaf had another test done from the same samples, and the results all came back negative for salmonella contamination.

There have been no reports of illness or problems with the product, but when the company received the news of the presumptive 'positive', True Leaf began to withdraw all products that had been shopped from July 19 to July 25, 2007.

"The most important result here is that no consumers were hurt or endangered," said David Gill, Chief Executive Officer of True Leaf. "Even though this presumptive 'positive' report turned out to be an error, withdrawing all of the product was still the right thing to do. We would do exactly the same thing if it happened again. There can simply be no higher priority than the safety of our customers."

The company is now trying to work with vendors to put the withdrawn products back in the marketplace.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Brake Cylinder Recalled Due to Brake Failure Hazard

Jenny Albano — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:38:39 GMT

The CPSC, in cooperation with Gustav Magenwirth GmbH, announced a voluntary recall of the 190 Radial Brake Master Cylinders. This product is used on off-road motorcycles and around 200 of the brake cylinders are being recalled.

The brake cylinder on the motorcycle is able to crack, which would cause brake failure. If the motorcycle fails to brake, the driver may face the risk of death or serious injury. So far, there have been no accidents or injuries reported.

This recall involves 190 Radial Brake Master Cylinders used on off-road motorcycles. The brake cylinders have an "A" or "B" code on the underside of the lever's pivot bolt. The Magura logo is printed on the cylinder. Brake cylinders without the "A" or "B" markings are not included in this recall.

The brake cylinder was sold by motorcycle dealers all over the country, through mail-order catalogues, and on the Internet. The product was available from August 2005 through May 2007.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Slip-And-Fall Injuries Around Pools - You May Be At Risk!

Edward Smith — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:48:25 GMT

A swimming pool is the recreational zone for your family. But, it can also become an accident-prone zone! Slip and fall injuries around pool decks are not uncommon. So, if you care about your family read this and find out how to make your swimming pool a safe place.

Are Your Ladders Trustworthy?

You can't have a pool without a ladder. Whether you have an in-ground pool or above-ground one, always make sure that the ladders are in proper condition. They should be secured tightly and have no loose hinges. Never, ever, keep a broken ladder!

Remember:
â€¢ If there is a ladder tread or step that is cracked or broken, fix it at once.
â€¢ See to it that your ladders don't damage the floor or walls of the pool.
â€¢ Every year, examine the bumpers and rubber pads. Replace them, if necessary.

Can You Rely On Your Diving Boards?

What is the most dangerous component of your pool? The diving board! It is responsible for more than 50 per cent of pool accidents. So, watch out!

â€¢ Make sure that your diving board is secured tight and has no cracks, slick surface, or loose hardware.
â€¢ The danger increases when the deck is wet. Anyone can slip on it and injure him or herself.
â€¢ Fix proper lighting around your diving board at night.
â€¢ Drinking and driving is dangerous. But, "drinking and diving" means placing yourself on dangerous waters as well!! So, make sure nobody dives into the pool in a drunken state.

Have You Tried Swimming Pool Slides?

They are good substitutes to diving boards. They not only look attractive with their alluring designs and colors, but also increase the safety quotient of your pool. Most of the swimming pool slides contain a water connection, which requires a supply line from the filter system or pool return. You can even get smaller slides requiring no water source.

Remember: The critical thing about slide installation is safety. You must install them as per the specifications provided by the manufacturer. There should be no piling on the slide or horseplay.

Does Your Deck Surface Spell Danger?

The commonest slip-and-fall injuries happen due to slippery deck surface. So, make sure that the area around your pool is dry. If there are puddles around the pool, it is the responsibility of the owner to warn the guests about it.

If someone has a slip-and-fall accident, he or she will have to prove the negligence of the owner in letting the puddle around the pool. And if there are tiles on the surface, the injured will have no problem in filing claims of negligence against the pool owner. So, if you own a pool, be careful!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Edward Smith

Consumer Alert - Treadmills pose a danger to children

Laura Mackie — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:36:56 GMT

Health conscious parents beware, especially if your health routine includes using a treadmill. A retrospective study was performed by the Shriners hospital in Sacramento California (covering the years 1998 to 2002) which dealt with the characteristics and treatment of treadmill related burn injuries in children. Ten patients sustained injuries associated with treadmill use. Their average age was just over 3 and their injuries involved trapping of the hand between the conveyor belt and the base. A child's hand can get trapped in the conveyor belt, causing friction burns to the underlying tissue. The children received burn injuries predominantly on their fingers and palms. Four patients required operative intervention. The children all required specialized wound care as well as scar management and occupational therapy.

Obviously, current safety devices are ineffective for preventing serious hand injuries in children. New design modifications and public awareness are needed to improve child safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Laura Mackie

Product Liability and Children's Toys

Laura Mackie — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:51:07 GMT

On December 7, 2006, the U.S. government reported at least one child has died and 19 others have needed surgery since 2003 after swallowing magnets used in toys. Researchers have found that most of those cases involved tiny (but strong) magnets that became linked together in the children's digestive tracts, squeezing the intestines and in some cases even causing perforation. Jonathan Midgett, the study's lead author said the magnets have become common in the U.S. toy market in the past five years because they have become cheaper to produce. They are used in building sets, action figures and dolls.

Lawsuits generated due to product liability spurred Mega Brands Inc. to recall 3.8 million Magnetix building sets. The company also agreed to add warning labels to their product. Magnetix agreed to pay $13.5 million to settle the lawsuits. Mattel Inc. recalled more than 4 million Polly Pocket play sets, dolls with small magnets in their hands, feet, clothing and other accessories.
Federal and industry officials hope to have a warning label ready within six months for toys containing magnets.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Laura Mackie

Auto Accidents and Burns

Laura Mackie — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:45:51 GMT

Burn injuries are second only to motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. There are, however, instances where victims suffer injury and/or death as a result of a fire that was part of an automobile accident. The fact is, fires occur in about three out of every one thousand automobile collisions. Each year thousands of people sustain disfiguring or fatal burn injuries in post-collision fires. Many of these can be attributed to dangerous and defective fuel system designs. Injured parties and/or their families are often able to recoup their losses by filing a personal injury lawsuit against the automobile manufacturer because of the defect.

Although certainly not the only loss suffered by the victim of a burn, the financial aspect of treatment can be overwhelming. Burns associated with motor vehicles account for as much as 10% of all burn admissions to hospitals and are one of the most expensive catastrophic injuries to treat. For example, initial hospitalization costs and physician's fees alone can cost as much as $200,000. For extensive burns, there are additional significant costs. These costs include charges for repeat admissions incurred for reconstruction and for rehabilitation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Laura Mackie