Product Recall

Consumer Product Safety Commission Fire Pit and Heated Blanket Recalls


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On November 10, 2020, and November 12, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recalls related to products that present fire hazards:

  1. Fire Pit Tables Sold Exclusively at Big Lots Recalled Due to Fire Hazard; Manufactured by Sunjoy. According to the CPSC, “[a]n incorrectly installed burner kit hose can melt and ignite, posing a fire hazard.”
  2. InvoSpa Recalls Heated Blankets Due to Fire and Burn Hazards; Sold Exclusively at Amazon.com (Recall Alert). According to the CPSC, “[t]he recalled blankets can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.”
This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Fire

Arkansas Federal Court Denies Defendants’ Attempt to Exclude Evidence


This entry was posted by on .

In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, No. 5:18-CV-5250, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203267 (W.D. Ark.), a subrogating carrier filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective bathroom fan caught fire and caused property damage. Prior to trial, the defendants/manufacturers filed motions to: (i) prevent the plaintiff’s experts from testifying for allegedly spoliating evidence; and (ii) prevent the admission of the fire marshal’s report as hearsay and/or as prejudicial, confusing and/or misleading. The court denied the defendants motions, thereby allowing all of the evidence to be presented by the subrogating carrier at trial. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Arkansas, Evidence, Spoliation and tagged , , , .
Recall Alert

Kohl’s Recalls Three-Wick Sonoma Goods For Life Branded Candles


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On November 10, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Kohl’s Recalls Three-Wick SONOMA Goods For Life Branded Candles Due to Fire and Burn Hazards.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he candle’s high flames can ignite the surface of the wax or cause the glass to break, posing fire and burn hazards.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Recall

Ring Recalls Video Doorbells (2nd Generation)


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On November 10, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Ring Recalls Video Doorbells (2nd Generation) Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he video doorbell’s battery can overheat when the incorrect screws are used for installation, posing fire and burn hazards.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Recall Alert

Coulter Ventures Recalls Rogue Home Timers Due to Fire Hazard


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On November 4, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Coulter Ventures Recalls Rogue Home Timers Due to Fire Hazard; Sold Exclusively at Rogue Fitness.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he lithium-ion battery inside the timer can burn due to overheating, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Recall

Schneider Electric Recalls Surgeloc™ Surge Protection Devices


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On October 28, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Schneider Electric Recalls Surgeloc™ Surge Protection Devices Due to Fire Hazard.

According to the CPSC, “[t]he Surgeloc Surge Protection Device can experience an arc event, which can result in a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Gavel

Nothing Personal – Missouri District Court Holds that Defendant’s Nationwide Retail Website Does Not Subject it to Specific Jurisdiction


This entry was posted by on .

In Allied Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jpauljones L.P. & Tek Elec. Co., 1:19-CV-00237-SNLJ, 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 179225, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered whether defendant Jpauljones, L.P. (JPJ) was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Missouri because its website sold products to Missouri residents. The court held that the defendant’s nationwide retail website, with no particular focus or target on Missouri, does not in itself subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in Missouri. This case further narrows the reach of specific jurisdiction based solely on the defendant’s direct internet-based sales into the forum. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Jurisdiction, Missouri, Products Liability and tagged , , , , .

Strictly Speaking, the Plaintiff’s Fault Matters in Products Liability Actions in Georgia


This entry was posted by on .

Many states, finding that the purpose of the strict liability doctrine is to protect otherwise defenseless victims from defective products, hold that principles of comparative negligence do not apply to strict liability actions. Georgia is not one of those states. In Johns v. Suzuki Motor of Am., S19G1478, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 760, the Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that Georgia’s comparative fault statute, OCGA § 51-12-33, applies to strict products liability claims brought pursuant to Georgia’s product liability statute, OCGA § 51-1-11. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Comparative-Contributory Negligence, Georgia, Negligence, Products Liability, Uncategorized and tagged , , , .
Recall Alert

Sales BSD Recalls Homerygardens Extension Cord Splitters


This entry was posted by on .

In subrogation cases where the insured’s damages were caused by a defective product, the fact that the product at issue is or was subject to a recall announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may help to establish that the product was defective when it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. On October 15, 2020, the CPSC announced the following recall related to a product that presents a fire hazard:

Sales BSD Recalls Homerygardens Extension Cord Splitters Due to Fire Hazard (Recall Alert).

According to the CPSC, “[t]he wire size of the recalled extension cords cannot handle the appropriate amp load and lacks protective features, posing a fire hazard.”

This entry was posted in CPSC Recalls, Products Liability and tagged .
Product Fire

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions


This entry was posted by on .

Courts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided. Continue reading

This entry was posted in Evidence, Pennsylvania, Spoliation and tagged , , .