Defective cosmetics in Mercadona

Hi, in this post I am going to speak about a new that I found in the “El Mundo“ newspaper that speaks about defective cosmetics at the supermarket Mercadona. 

The Spanish cosmetics brand, Mercadona, removed eleven of its products Deliplus after the Spanish Medicines Agency request the supplier of cosmetic products, change the formula of that product. The establishments of Mercadona voluntarily tdecided to remove that products.

The most serious reason why they decided to remove these products from the market, was because most of the creams contained pH corrector (triethanolamine) and also contained a preservative called "bronopol" which could cause nitrosamine, that is a chemical compound which some selected studies associated with some cancers.

In that moment, when they relized that those products were dangerous, the company that manufactured those products decided to stop the elaboration of lotions and they also stop the distribution of them at Mercadona. In the case that the product named in this "defective" case has caused any damage to the buyer, product liability obviously would not play in favor of the company, on the contrary.

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2012/08/14/pielsana/1344953704.html

The danger of toys

According to the Safety Commission on Consumer Products, each year approximately 155,000 children are taken to emergency in one country because of toy-related injuries. It is assumed that the toys are educational, funny and part of childhood. Unfortunately, when toy manufacturers put earnings before safety, the result can be a toy made of poor quality with safety defects. These toys can cause catastrophic injuries, including eye injuries, head injuries, burns, fractures and other serious injuries.

The civil liability claims related to toys occur because of one of this four reasons:

• The age restrictions for the toy are inadequate or inaccurate.
• The toy came out defective during the manufacturing process. This may mean that the toy have sharp edges, parts that easily break off and cause a suffocation danger, or other risks. It can mean that the toy was manufactured with toxic paint or toxic materials that are harmful.
• The toy came with incorrect instructions. These instructions may not properly warn parents about the risks of the toy, or could not clearly explain how to put te toy together safely.

The design of the toy is unsafe. This often means that the toy was poorly designed, with sharp edges or other components that put the child's safety at risk.

http://abogado.flaxmanlaw.com/productos-defectuosos-juguetes.html

Ford Pinto car case

The Ford Pinto, one of the most popular cars of the 1970s, had a lethal defect. Dozens of people were killed in crashes because of a faulty design that left the gas tank unprotected and vulnerable to explosion. Government an Ford didn’t protect consumers. Internal company documents showed that Ford knew it could fix the problem with $11 per car. But executives calculated that it would be more profitable to leave the vehicle unchanged and pay victims.

It took a civil lawsuit along with litigation on gas tank hazards in other cars to bring about requirements for improved gas tank safety and cause manufacturers to redesign the placement of gas tanks. Nearly 300 people were killed in crashes caused by tread separation of tires.

Trial lawyers also used the civil courts to help expose the problems with cars manufactured by Toyota, General Motors and other manufacturers that caused hundreds of deaths and injuries as vehicles suddenly sped out of control.

Even air bags were equipped on only 2% of new vehicles in 1988. But after more than a hundred lawsuits alleged manufacturers knew that thousands of deaths each year were because of the absence of air bags, and manufacturers began losing in court or paying settlements.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAI5T8UecEY

McDonald's coffe case

McDonald's coffee case, was a 1994 product liability case that became very popular in the United States. Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old woman suffered third degree burns in her groin when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after buying it from a McDonald's restaurant. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded. The jury damages included $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damage and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE

Francisco Garcia's case

Aside from medical malpractice in this post I will talk about a case of civil liability of products in this case a ball that exploded:

The Sacramento Kings and NBA player Francisco Garcia have settled their product liability lawsuit against exercise ball manufacturer Ledraplastic.

Three years ago, Garcia was balancing on an exercise ball and lifting weights at the same time. Garcia claims he had 90-pound weights in each hand when the ball suddenly burst. As a result, Garcia says that he fell to the ground and suffered serious injuries including a fractured forearm. At the time, Garcia had just signed a five year contract that would pay him almost $30 million. He had to miss a good portion of the initial season of the contract and suffered lingering injuries. 

Garcia sued for a breach of the manufacturer’s warranty. They claimed that the Ledraplastic marketed the ball as being able to withstand 600 pounds and being “burst resistant.” They claimed that Garcia burst the ball while carrying only 180 pounds of weights. During testing, Garcia’s lawyer was reportedly able to recreate the ball bursting with 400 pounds on it. 

Generally, a manufacturer of a product will be liable for any injuries if the product is not made as advertised. If someone is injured because of the defective product, the manufacturer has to pay. Garcia had also sought damages for pain and suffering as well as loss in future earning capacity. In addition, Ledraplastic is also required to include a warning to all purchasers of the ball not to use it while lifting free weights.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2012/11/nba-star-francisco-garcia-settles-exercise-ball-lawsuit.html