Why are Consumer Safety Cases important?
Many product liability cases have had a positive impact on overall consumer safety, and we have witnessed improved lives and future injuries prevented as companies liked Ikea and other furniture manufacturers are forced to remove dangerous products and change designs as a result of litigation.
Questions about Furniture Injury Litigation
Product liability lawsuits often contain causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Strict liability applies to different factors than negligence-based claims.
In negligence cases, the actions of the defendant are the focus. In strict liability claims, the focus is on the condition of a product at the time it left the manufacturer. If a piece of furniture is determined to be defective, the company is liable for any foreseeable injuries that are in-part caused by the defective condition of the product.
Furniture may be defective if it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. A legal cause of action can be based on several types of product defects. The following are product liability and strict liability claims available in most jurisdictions nationwide:
(1) Manufacturing/ Construction Defect:
These issues arise where furniture is released from the factory in a manner that deviates from the intended design or specifications. The defect can be a result of using the wrong materials, including the wrong or completely foreign materials.
As a result of the deviation, the furniture enters the market in an unreasonably dangerous condition and the consumer is exposed to or purchases a product that is defective. Any personal injuries or economic loss that arise from the the defect are compensable under product liability law.
(2) Defective design and/or formulation:
Defective furniture design cases arise not because a mistake was made during the manufacturing process, but rather the original design of the product is unreasonably dangerous. A “risk benefit analysis” is used to determine whether safer/less expensive alternative designs were available to the manufacturer.
Federal regulations set minimum standards for the design of many consumer products, and preemption defenses may preclude liability in some situations if the manufacturer follows and obtains federal approval for a product.
(3) Failure to warn or inadequate warning or instruction associated with the product:
All consumer products come with necessary and appropriate warnings and instructions for use. If the lack of a warning makes the product and use of the product unsafe, the manufacturer is liable for the failure to place the warning.
Furniture manufacturers are required to warn of the known or foreseeable risks and update the warnings in a timely manner. Litigation arises where there is evidence the manufacturer failed to timely update a warning in light of new data or simply ignored the risk and failed to conduct sufficient research to identify and then disclose the risk.
The product fails to conform to a representation or warranty. Warranty claims are more common in commercial and economic loss cases than in personal injury cases. In many States, The Product Liability Act does not apply to cases with only economic loss, because the Commercial Code provides recourse for breach of warranty.
The following factors are considered under law when determining the risks associated with the design of a furniture product: (1) the magnitude of the risk of injury; (2) ordinary consumer awareness of the risk for injury; (3) the likelihood of causing injury; (4) the violation of a private or public standard; and (5) the consumer’s expectation of the performance of the product and level of danger. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (B) Product Defective in Design or Formulation.
The following factors are considered under law when determining the benefits associated with furniture design: (1) the utility of the product; (2) availability of an alternative design; (3) the magnitude of risks associated with an alternative design. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (c)
Defenses for Defective Design: (1) a piece of furniture is not defective by design if it contains an adequate warning of an unavoidably unsafe aspect (2) the dangerous aspect is inherent to the product, recognizable, and cannot be eliminated without compromising the product’s usefulness; (3) a lack of a feasible alternative design. 2307.75 (d)(e)(f).
A manufacturing defect is based on a defect that occurred during the furniture manufacturing process. Many companies have been involved in this kind of product liability lawsuits in recent years, due to dangerous manufacturing errors.
Most manufacturing defect cases are based on a products deviation from the intended specification, formula, performance standards, or design model. In such cases, it may be easy to determine the product did not comply with the intended design.
The product may be recalled as a specific lot is identified as being non-compliant and defective. A product may be defective in manufacture or construction, materials and assembly, and a manufacturer or distributor may be subject to strict liability, even though it exercised all possible care. Ohio Revised Code 2307.74.
In determining whether furniture is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction, evidence must be presented to prove:
- The manufacturer knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about a risk
- A reasonable manufacturer would have provided a warning of the risk
- The manufacturer failed to provide the warning
- The person was injured due to a lack of warning. The same elements apply whether the claim is based on a warning present during the marketing or post-sale warnings.
Defenses to Failure to Warn Claims: (1) the risk was open and obvious or a matter of common knowledge; and (2) in cases of a pharmaceutical drug or medical device, the warning was provided to the prescribing physician (“Learned Intermediary Doctrine”).
Furniture companies have been targeted in failure to warn lawsuits for either failing to place warnings on their products or failing to properly test their product before putting it to market.
Design and manufacturing defects result in thousands of product recalls each year in the United States, initiated by federal safety agencies. Following injury and illness, regardless of furniture recall status, victims and plaintiffs may pursue legal action and contact a product liability lawyer to begin the litigation process. Rightful compensation can be sought and help plaintiffs recover medical costs and other related damages.
Product liability law overlaps with regulatory law, which are the systems of legislative rules and administrative agencies, and part of federal and state governments.
The listed government agencies, however, may initiate recalls of dangerous products but do not provide remedies or compensation for damages where an individual is injured due to the defective product.
1. Bed Bath & Beyond Recalls SALT Lounge Chairs Due to Fall Hazard: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/
2. CB2 Recalls Trace Bookcases Due to Risk of Collapse; Injury Hazard to Consumers: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/
3. Crate and Barrel Recalls Danish Tall Bookcases Due to Risk of Collapse; Injury Hazard to Consumers: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/
4. Walker Edison recalled 24,000 drawer chests because the chests are unstable if they are not anchored to the wall, posing serious tip-over and entrapment hazards that may result in death or injuries to children. The chests do not comply with the performance requirements of the U.S. voluntary industry standard.
The Firm has the experience, resources and dedication to take on difficult furniture defect cases and help our clients obtain the justice for the wrong they have suffered.
Joe Lyon is an experienced Product Liability Lawyer. The Lyon Firm has 17 years of experience and success representing individuals and plaintiffs in all fifty states, and in a variety of complex civil litigation matters. Product Liability lawsuits can be complex and require industry experts to determine the root cause of an accident or injury. Mr. Lyon has worked with experts nationwide to assist individuals understand why an injury occurred and what can be done to improve their lives in the future. Some cases may go to a jury trial, though many others can be settled out of court.
Filing Furniture Defect Lawsuits
Defective furniture on the market presents safety and hazards for adults and children. Cheap furniture may pose tip-over, entrapment, strangulation and choking risks; and crush injury risks. The manufacturers of all consumer products have a duty to foresee potential injury and properly design and test products before they are released.
Companies must also properly warn consumers of any risks associated with their products. Any failure to protect consumers that results in furniture accidents and injury can lead to lawsuits filed by plaintiffs and their product liability lawyer
Consumer Safety Settlements
The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a defective product or recalled product to obtain just compensation under the law.
DEFECTIVE LAP BELT RESTRAINT
SPINAL CORD INJURY
(Pikeville, Kentucky): Confidential settlement for Plaintiff who suffered spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia due to defectively designed seat belt. Four passengers with three-point (lap/shoulder) belts walked away from the accident, and the only passenger wearing a two-point belt (lap only) suffered a debilitating spinal cord injury. The settlement assisted with home improvements to assist in daily living. GM entered federal bankruptcy during the process and no longer manufactures two-point lap belts for vehicles.
DEFECTIVE PROPANE WALL HEATER
(Hillsboro, Ohio): Confidential Settlement for the family of elderly man who was catastrophically burned while operating a propane wall heater. The burns resulted in his unfortunate death. The heater, manufactured and sourced from China, was alleged to allow the flame to reach outside the grid area in violation of ANSI standards. The Defendant resolved the case following discovery and mediation. The recovered funds were paid to the victim’s surviving spouse and children. The company no longer manufactures this type of heater.