Dallas Personal Injury Lawyer - Defective & Dangerous Products

Are Tanning Booths as Dangerous as Tobacco?(2)

Jeff Rasansky — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:42:00 GMT

Tanning beds first arrived in the United States in 1978, and their design has not changed much since then. They contain a special blend of phosphors that bombard users with a combination of UVA and UVB ultraviolet radiation. This wavelength of light does two things. First, it stimulates a golden, glowing tan that will turns heads at the beach. Second, it causes melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer.

It's no secret that tanning beds are dangerous. Recent studies have found that the risk for skin cancer increases by 75% for those who regularly use tanning beds, a statistic so worrisome that it has compelled the World Health Organization to classify the products in their highest cancer risk category. In 1988 the government began to regulate the beds at a federal level, primarily with restrictions on exposure times, variations between brands, and compulsory labeling of their dangerous side effects. Several states have issued their own guidelines since then.

All this information begs a comparison with the tobacco industry. Both cigarettes and tanning beds are products that can cause cancer, and both have been markets as tools to improve one's quality of life. Should the salon industry, then, expect impending, successful lawsuits?

Probably not. When individuals have sued tobacco companies for selling dangerous products, the companies have responded, successfully, that the pruchase of the product is an individual choice. To get around this argument, plaintiffs have claimed, again successfully, that cigarettes are so addictive that it isn't a choice to buy them. This argument, while persuasive and backed up by science for cigarettes, fails to apply to tanning beds; we all like looking tan, but we don't go through symptoms of withdrawal without it.

Furthermore, the fact that the tanning industry has been so closely regulated since its inception has helped stave off lawsuits. For tobacco companies, the laws applying to their product have constantly changed over the years; for tanning salons, the rules of the game were set from the very beginning. Therefore the tanning industry has been able to more conscientiously adhere to regulations and pre-emptively avoid any possible unlawful activity.

The lesson? Use tanning beds at your own risk. If you do end up with cancer, you'll need more than a lawyer to save your bronzed, gleaming skin.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Are Tanning Booths as Dangerous as Tobacco?

Jeff Rasansky — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:20:00 GMT

It's no secret that tanning beds are dangerous. Recent studies have found that the risk for skin cancer increases by 75% for those who regularly use tanning beds, a statistic so worrisome that it has compelled the World Health Organization to classify the products in their highest cancer risk category. In 1988 the government began to regulate the beds at a federal level, primarily with restrictions on exposure times, variations between brands, and compulsory labeling of their dangerous side effects. Several states have issued their own guidelines since then.

All this information begs a comparison with the tobacco industry. Both cigarettes and tanning beds are products that can cause cancer, and both have been markets as tools to improve one's quality of life. Should the salon industry, then, expect impending, successful lawsuits?

Probably not. When individuals have sued tobacco companies for selling dangerous products, the companies have responded, successfully, that the pruchase of the product is an individual choice. To get around this argument, plaintiffs have claimed, again successfully, that cigarettes are so addictive that it isn't a choice to buy them. This argument, while persuasive and backed up by science for cigarettes, fails to apply to tanning beds; we all like looking tan, but we don't go through symptoms of withdrawal without it.

Furthermore, the fact that the tanning industry has been so closely regulated since its inception has helped stave off lawsuits. For tobacco companies, the laws applying to their product have constantly changed over the years; for tanning salons, the rules of the game were set from the very beginning. Therefore the tanning industry has been able to more conscientiously adhere to regulations and pre-emptively avoid any possible unlawful activity.

The lesson? Use tanning beds at your own risk. If you do end up with cancer, you'll need more than a lawyer to save your bronzed, gleaming skin.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Coleman Camping Heater at Center of Potential Fraud & Dangerous Product Case in California

Jeff Rasansky — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:01:24 GMT

From time to time, we receive reports from not only our clients about current personal injury news, but from friends of the law firm as well. John Bisnar and Brian Chase, of the Orange County, California law firm Bisnar | Chase sent out a press release yesterday, looking to shine a little bit of attention on a personal injury case they're working on, this one involving a popular camping equipment manufacturer, Coleman.

The basic facts of the case: on December 30, 2005, Trevor Dennis and his parents were camping at the Octillo Wells Desert Recreation area in California. Trevor, then nine years old, went to bed in the camping trailer, which was heated by a Model 5053 ProCat PerfecTemp Coleman propane heater. Later in the evening, the heater malfunctioned, causing the trailer to burst into flames - while Trevor was inside. Most of the trailer was destroyed, and Trevor sustained severe burns over much of his body. Trevor's injuries will require extensive ongoing medical care.

Yet here's where the case turns: Coleman had been violating California law prohibiting non-vented portable heaters from being sold for use indoors. This statute was designed to prevent propane heaters - which use natural gas to warm the air - from non-ventilated areas, potentially causing significant harm. The packaging and labeling of the heater clearly indicated that the heater could be used indoors. The Sacramento District Attorney's office received reports of these illegal sales - along with complaints about the faulty product itself - and sent a letter to both Coleman and Home Depot, where the heater was sold. Home Depot complied with the request to remove the heater from its shelves; Coleman, however, took a different route.

Coleman instead hired outside lawyers to assist their in-house lawyers with this issue. This isn't surprising. What is astounding, however, is the possible evidence that these outside lawyers were brought in to circumvent California law. Our friends John Bisnar and Brian Chase requested all documentation regarding the work of these outside lawyers - if Coleman knew of a problem with the heaters, both from selling them in violation of California law (and committing a crime in the process) AND from the faulty product itself (resulting in Trevor's extensive burn injuries), these documents could potentially prove a case, either for or against Coleman.

Coleman refused to hand over the documents, creating a presumption that maybe these documents aren't so helpful to their defense - and maybe much more helpful in aiding Trevor's claims and medical bills following this unfortunate event.

Bisnar | Chase filed a motion with the court to compel Coleman to release these documents - and the trial court agreed that these documents, though ordinarily privileged as attorney-client communications, should be available to the court due to the possibility of evidence of Coleman deliberately committing a crime and knowingly circumventing California health and safety laws. Coleman, of course, appealed the decision.

Today we'll learn more about what the appeals court thinks of these so-called privileged documents, though in our mind, there's no defense to knowingly manufacturing and selling faulty products, especially in violation of state or federal law, no matter who created or used these materials. Good luck to our friends out in California and may the appeals court do the right thing and compel Coleman to release these documents to the court.

Questions about this post or any other personal injury news? Have you been injured by Coleman camping products? Contact the Rasansky Law Firm online or at 1-800-Attorney to discuss your situation free of charge with our staff, attorneys, and lawyers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

When are Personal Injury Verdicts Excessive?

Jeff Rasansky — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:47:35 GMT

Or maybe this should be titled "How the Oregon Courts Fought the Law - and Won."

A silly idea, right? Infighting within the judiciary?

First, some backstory: in 1997, Mayola Williams was widowed after her husband, a long-term smoker, died of lung cancer. Ms. Williams brought suit against Phillip Morris, and was awarded a $79 million dollar jury verdict for punitive damages. Ms. Williams was also awarded $521,000 in compensory damages for the actual harm itself.

Philip Morris has appealed several times, the Oregon courts standing firm in the jury verdict and monetary award.

The case, however, has reached the US Supreme Court three times, each time sent back to Oregon for review - which continued to affirm the verdict.

The first time through the US Supreme Court, back in 2001, resulted in the 9-to-1 ratio maximum between punitive and compensatory damages.

Here's where things take a delightful twist: after the second time the case was sent back to Oregon, the Supreme Court gave explicit instructions to be sure the verdict did not punish Philip Morris for injuries to anyone other than Ms. Williams' husband in a narrow 5-4 decision. The Oregon Supreme Court again affirmed the verdict - not based directly on these instructions, but instead on the grounds that the court is independent, located in an independent state. Essentially, the Oregon Supreme Court thumbed its nose at the US Supreme Court, saying "you can't tell us what to do and how to do it," a procedural and perhaps constitutional slight of hand.

This decision led to the third round through the US Supreme Court as Philip Morris attemped to paint the Oregon courts as renegade. Yet it was the US Supreme Court who backed down, blinking during the staring content, dismissing the case (Philip Morris v. Williams) in a one sentence opinion: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."

What does this mean: could mean many things.

Tony Mauro, a Supreme Court columnist at the

Does this signal a shift in how the merits of personal injury cases are viewed at the Supreme Court if the justices can't agree on a basic procedural matter in light of the merits of the case?

And if the justices can't agree, are they instead willing to defer to the state courts in how punitive damages are handled? And if so, how far is the US Supreme Court willing to defer to the guidance of the state courts?

If a majority can't be reached, does this signal infighting within the court on this issue, either narrowly with the nature of personal injury cases, or worse, broadly in all cases?

And which state/case will be next to try this move against the Supreme Court? And will it hold water next time around?

Stay tuned.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Skin Numbing Drugs Are Linked To Dangerous Side Effects

Jeff Rasansky — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:17:52 GMT

Drugs that are designed to numb the skin, such as lidocaine, tetracaine, benzocaine and prilocaine have all been linked to serious and life-threatening side effects when used improperly. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the agency is particularly concerned about the danger posed by the drugs when they were used on women to reduce the discomfort of mammograms.

These drugs are available as creams, ointments and gels, and all work by blocking pain sensation in the skin. When they are applied to the skin surface, they can be absorbed more readily into the blood stream. The FDA warned that when these are used improperly, these skin numbing drugs might cause life-threatening side effects, like irregular hearbeats, seizures, breathing difficulties or even death.

The new warning on skin numbing drugs follows a February 2007 health alert that was prompted by the deaths of two women who were treated with these products to lessen leg pain following a hair removal procedure. During that time, the FDA warned that an excessive amount of the drugs' active ingredients could pass into the blood stream when the products were applied over a large area of skin, when it stays on the skin for an extended period of time and when the skin is covered with plasic wrap after the application of the product.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Victoria's Secret Bras Containing Formaldehyde?

Jeff Rasansky — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:26:23 GMT

Uh oh. Look's like Victoria has been keeping something else a secret. Women have been coming down with blistering rashes and sever itching as a result of some of the Victoria's Secret bras! Recently, a woman in Ohio filed a lawsuit after discovering that there was formaldehyde--an embalming chemical--in her bras. The bras that she ended up purchasing were the Angels Secret Embrace and Very Sexy Extreme Me Push up bras.

The lawsuit has been filed, but court approval of the class action has yet to take place. There have been several other women who have come forward with similar complaints. According to the ABC News, Victoria's Secret has claimed that they do not use formaldehyde in their bras.

So how did that noxious chemical get into these bras? More than likely, somewhere in the manufacturing process when products are exposed to dangerous chemicals.

Consumers rarely have protection from these types of injuries. It is super important for government regulation agencies to get involved in the manufacturing processes to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

If you have been injured by one of these bras, make sure that you contact a personal injury attorney to be informed of your rights as a consumer. Simply fill out the free case evaluation form to the right of this blog post, and someone will review your case shortly.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Dallas Defective Products Lawyer: Defective Products Can Cause Serious Injury

Jeff Rasansky — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:03:12 GMT

If you’ve ever been injured when you were using a product, it is likely that it wasn’t your fault that you sustained those injuries. Products are constantly being created, manufactured and sold with defects and flaws in their design. It is sad that these defects can result in injury and even death. Anyone who is injured while using a product may be able to sue the manufacturer or store for monetary damages.

When a store (or anyone responsible for the product) is found to be at fault in a defective products (or products liability) case, the court may order them to compensate the victim for any injuries caused by the defective product. The court may also choose to award “punitive” damages, which are designed to punish the parties responsible for the defective products. Experienced product liability attorneys will be able to explain how the laws work and will strive to get you the compensation you deserve.

Many products liability claims revolve around defective cars. With so many different components, there are many things that can go wrong. Brakes can go out, airbags may not deploy correctly or the engine might have serious defects. But product liability claims may also be taken out against home appliances, medications or toys. Defective products are constantly being recalled by manufacturers, but sometimes it isn’t fast enough, and then people are injured or even killed.

If you’ve been injured by a defective product, contact us for a free evaluation by filling out the form to the left of this text. You may be eligible for compensation for your pain and suffering.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Dallas Product Liability Lawyer: What You Should Know...

Jeff Rasansky — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:47:08 GMT

How do you know who to choose to represent you? As we blogged yesterday, there are plenty of lawyers in Dallas to choose from. Just turn on the TV or open a phone book! You should know that there are good lawyers…and there are great lawyers.

When it comes to your product liability case, you need a great lawyer. Why? Because the company you are going up against is definitely going to have a great lawyer (if not team of lawyers). Large corporations and insurance companies have enough funding to be supported by some of the best attorneys money can buy. Needless to say, the odds can be quite stacked against you.

In order for you to stand a chance, you must have an attorney who has a record of “slaying the giants”. You need a lawyer with both experience and fortitude. That’s where the Rasansky Law Firm comes in.

The Rasansky Law Firm has won countless product liability cases and will continue to do so because we have the resources to go up against the big guys. We present the cases so that all of the damages are considered and you receive the amount that you deserve. If you think you may have a product liability case and would like one of our experienced attorneys to review it for you...for FREE...fill out the evaluation form to the right of this blog right away.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Deadly Bassinets Result in Two Deaths

Jeff Rasansky — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:25:13 GMT

Simplicity Bassinets have been implicated in the death of two children, which has resulted in the removal of over 900,000 products. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that six retailers, including Wal-Mart and Toys R Us, have agreed to stop selling the Simplicity 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 close sleeper models of bassinets. The announcements have come one day after the CPSC issued a warning regarding these products.

These bassinets are a death trap. With metal bars that are placed farther apart than 2 3/8 inches (the maximum according to industry standards), the cribs pose a very real strangulation hazard. If you have one of these products in your home, you should immediately return it to the store you purchased it from.

A six-month old girl in Kansas died last Thursday after being trapped between the horizontal railing of her bassinet and mattress. Her death was ruled an “accidental positional asphyxiation”.

The CPSC has requested that retailers stop selling the bassinets, but the company who know owns Simplicity Inc. has refused to cooperate and recall the products. The company, SFCA Inc, says that it is not responsible for the products manufactured before they purchased the company.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky

Cribs Recalled After Four Children Are Trapped

Jeff Rasansky — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:22:57 GMT

A recall has been issued for about 320,000 cribs, after four children became trapped. Apparently the wooden slats on the crib’s frames can break and children can get trapped in the remaining gap. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is aware of at least 42 incidents of broken slats and four where children were trapped.

These cribs were manufactured in Taiwan by Jardine Enterprises and sold by Kidsworld stores, Geoffrey stores, Toys “R” Us and Babies “R” Us. They were available nationwide between January 2002 and May 2008.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jeff Rasansky