products liability Tag Archives - Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog

Mother Honors Her Daughter’s Memory with Georgia State Law School Scholarship

February 15, 2023 | Robin Frazer Clark

Last month I had the distinct and unusual honor of being a guest of my client, Carelle Karimimanesh, at the Georgia State University Law School Scholarship Donor Luncheon, to recognize Carelle for creating a law school scholarship in memory of her daughter, Naiyareh “Nai” Karimimanesh, with proceeds she received as a result of a settlement of a case for the wrongful death of Nai, in which I represented her. The scholarship is named the Naiyareh Karimimanesh Memorial Scholarship. Carelle also endowed a moot courtroom at Georgia State University in honor and memory of Nai, who graduated from Georgia State Law School.

Naiyareh Karimimanesh was born on May 17, 1979 in San Francisco, California. Nai graduated from Emory University in Atlanta where she graduated with a BA in History and minors in Religion and Persian (Farsi) in 2001. Her life and education were enhanced by summer study in Israel and Jordan. Nai was also an active member of the Emory Baha’i Club. While at Emory, Nai was a Jimmy Carter Presidential Center Intern, a University Senator, and a Senior Resident Advisor. She was a leader in the Residence Life Community and was respected and admired by all of her residents and the administration at Emory University. Nai earned her Juris Doctorate from Georgia State University in

2005.

Snapchat Case Lives to Fight Another Day

March 21, 2022 | Robin Frazer Clark

You may recall that I wrote a blog about a case that occurred in here in Georgia in which a husband and wife sued Snapchat (now known as Snap, Inc.) for negligent design of their “app” because the app promoted using it while a driver was driving at a high rate of speed as it recorded your speed for you to share (brag) with all of your friends and followers. The speed filter allows a driver behind the wheel to document his or her speed by “snapping” a picture while the car is in motion. On this one particular night, a teenage driver allegedly opened her Snapchat app while driving as an attempt to snap a picture of her car reaching 100 mph. The driver allegedly, according to the Complaint, accelerated until reaching approximately 107 mph before she realized another driver had pulled onto the road. She crashed into him at full speed. Both cars were totaled, leaving multiple people with tremendous injuries – both physical and psychological – and thousands of dollars in expenses.

That happened in 2015. Somewhere along the last seven years Snapchat filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and the trial court granted it. The plaintiffs appealed and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed. But now, in 2022, seven years after the original wreck, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled against Snapchat and in favor of the Plaintiffs to permit the lawsuit to proceed. Justice Verda Colvin wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court, which was not unanimous. There were three special concurrences and two dissents, and two justices did not participate in the opinion. The issue presented here was whether Snapchat owed a legal duty to the Maynards on the basis that a manufacturer’s duty to design reasonably safe products extends to people injured by a third party’s intentional and tortious misuse of the manufacturer’s product. Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., S21G0555, 2022 WL 779733, at *1 (Ga. Mar. 15, 2022) The Georgia Court of Appeals said “no.” The Georgia Supreme Court said “yes.” And there you have it. The Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion carries the day. But the plaintiffs still have a long way to go. The Supreme Court remanded (sent back) the case to the Georgia Court of Appeals with the instruction “to address whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Maynards’ claims against Snap and in granting judgment on the pleadings to Snap for lack of proximate causation.” This means the lower appellate court must now analyze the case from the standpoint of whether the Snapchat speed filter actually caused the wreck or was it merely the negligent driving of the teenage driver that caused the wreck. This is a 56 page opinion issued by the Supreme Court, so it is clear that the Court spent a great deal of time and thought on this matter. That is all you can ask for. But, with two dissents and three other special concurrences, you couldn’t call this a “ringing” endorsement of the cause of action. And, the Supreme Court may see the case a second time before a jury ever does, because depending on how the Georgia Court of Appeals rules, it is likely to go back up to the Supreme Court on the issue of proximate causation. I think, realistically, it will probably be 2025 (the 10 year anniversary of the wreck) before it may get in front of a jury.

That should show you a couple of things. First, the wheels of Justice often grind slowly. Recently, I had to testify in a deposition to authenticate a videotape of DeKalb Avenue for an attorney who has a case pending against the City of Atlanta regarding the reversible lane lights. I had taken that videotape in 2012, ten years ago. And that case was just getting to trial. Secondly, it should show you the tenacity of the lawyers representing the Maynards in this case. You can also say that about the defense attorneys in the case, but they have been getting paid for their work for the last seven years; the plaintiffs’ attorneys have not. When a plaintiff’s attorney decides to take a case, she or he has to decide to see it to the end, knowing the life of the case may last years before resolution. This is the agreement we make with our clients when we accept a case. We must fight nonstop for our clients. So hats off to the Maynards’ attorneys.

Ignition Switch Design Can Lead to Carbon Monoxide Death

September 1, 2020 | Robin Frazer Clark

You may have heard of the recent death of a Milton high school teacher due to carbon monoxide poisoning while she was in her town home. At least seven people in the connected town homes were injured, some seriously, by this carbon monoxide poisoning episode. It was so tragic and unexpected. The situation is still under investigation, but officials say they believe the exposure at the town homes was caused by an unoccupied vehicle left accidentally running in one of the town home’s garages. Investigators have since determined someone left their car running in their garage, sending the carbon monoxide through the adjoining homes.

Although this tragedy invoked the call for more people to have carbon monoxide detectors in their homes, I was surprised it didn’t also create an outcry that automobile manufacturers change their faulty design of ignition buttons. This is referred to as “keyless ignitions.” It has been well known for some time now that ignition buttons like the ones shown above have a faulty design that doesn’t allow the driver to know easily whether they have successfully turned off their car. There have been numerous instances of people dying from carbon monoxide poisoning in their homes due to their car still running in their garage that is attached to their home. It is no secret that these ignition “buttons” are defective in design and utilization.

The photographs above are from a rental car I drove recently. The only visible difference from these two buttons is that one has the very small “OFF” that appears to be illuminated in yellow and the other one has a very small “RUN” that appears to be illuminated in yellow. The one on the right is when the car engine is running. The one on the left is when the car engine is off. Do you see how hard it is to tell the difference? Sometimes these engines are so quiet the driver cannot tell whether he or she has correctly pressed the button all the way in to turn off the car. And because these cars have “fobs” now rather than actual keys, you may be carrying the fob in your pocket or in your purse and you may be still close enough to the car even when you are in your home that the car “thinks” the fob is still in the car and it will continue to run. When the garage is attached to the house, carbon monoxide fumes can quickly and easily travel into the home, sickening anyone inside. This is even more likely and foreseeable when the garage is attached to a town home, as it was in the recent tragedy in Milton. Not only did the carbon monoxide travel into the first town home where the running car was garaged, it continued to leak into the attached town homes, sickening others.

Hoverboards Headline a History of Defective Products Sold on Amazon

June 12, 2020 | Robin Frazer Clark

You may remember the hoverboard craze. About 5 years ago they took the United States by storm. With demand sky-high, multiple manufacturers ramped up production to cash in, they sold their products quickly, and no one asked questions. Shortly after their meteoric rise in popularity, hoverboards began earning headlines for the wrong reasons, and gained the reputation of a defective product. They began to overheat and catch fire. The defects and malfunctions were so common that hoverboards were banned in many places, ranging from college campuses, to theme parks, to public transportation.

In one instance, a fire caused by a defective hoverboard resulted in an entire home being burned to the ground. Similar stories are not uncommon; unfortunately, defective products can have destructive results. Often the only recourse is filing a lawsuit against the seller and/or manufacturer of the product. In the case of the Fox family, whose home was burned to the ground, they filed a lawsuit against Amazon. As the world’s largest retailer, it is not uncommon for these types of cases to be filed against Amazon. It is equally as uncommon for Amazon to be actually held responsible for their role in the sale of defective products.

The question at the heart of the complaints filed against Amazon is often whether Amazon is actually the ‘seller’ of the defective products. I have placed the term ‘seller’ in quotes because in different jurisdictions the term, ‘seller,’ can be defined in different ways. The responsibility for the product’s defections, and the resulting injuries rest on the ‘seller’ and/or manufacturer of the product. This raises a question of distinction that the court must decide… What constitutes a ‘seller’… and more importantly is Amazon a ‘seller’?

What is a Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn Consumers?

March 9, 2016 | Robin Frazer Clark

My friend and fellow trial lawyer, Lester Tate, and I are representing a young man in a case against Kawasaki, the manufacturer of the motorcycle he was riding when he was severely injured because it stalled on him. Months later, he received a recall notice that said the voltage regulator on his motorcycle was defective. The minute he received the notice he thought that sure explained what happened to him the day his world was turned upside with a catastrophic motorcycle wreck. The case was heard yesterday before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, our appellate court for cases that are filed in Federal Court, here in the Northern District of Georgia. One of the issues on appeal involves Kawasaki’s duty to warn its customers who have bought or used that particular motorcycle about a known defect with the motorcycle’s voltage regulator. So, a manufacturer’s duty owed to its consumer is heavily on mind right now.

What exactly is a manufacturer’s duty to want its customers of a potentially defective product? Under Georgia law , when the manufacturer of a product has actual or constructive knowledge that its product involves danger to users of the product, the manufacturer has a duty to warn users of the danger. Battersby v. Boyer, 526 S.E. 2d 159, 162 (Ga. App. 1999). O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(1) provides that “[t]he manufacturer of any personal property sold as new property directly or through a dealer or any other person shall be liable in tort, irrespective of privity, to any natural person who may use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property and who suffers injury to his person or property because the property when sold by the manufacturer was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended, and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.” The term “not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended” as used in this statute means “defective.” Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 645(1983). “In a product liability case, the existence of a duty to warn depends upon the foreseeability of the use in question and the type of danger involved, and the foreseeability of the user’s knowledge of the danger.” Dorsey Trailers Southeast v. Brackett, 363 S.E.2d 779, 781 (Ga. App. 1987). A manufacturer may be subject to liability for failing to warn the user adequately of the known or foreseen danger if there is no reason to believe the user will realize the dangerous condition.” Id. at 477; see Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 319 S.E.2d 470, 477 (Ga. App. 1984). When a duty to warn arises, the duty may be breached in one of two ways: (1) failure to communicate the warning to the ultimate user; or (2) failure to provide an adequate warning of the product’s potential risks. Battersby, 526 S.E.2d at 163; see Wilson Foods Corp. v. Turner, 460 S.E.2d 532, 534 (Ga. App. 1995) (citing Thornton v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours &Co. Inc., 22 F.3d 284, 290 (11th Cir. 1994)). “This duty to warn is a continuing one and may arise “months, years, or even decades after the date of the first sale of the product.” Watkins v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999). “Some products are defective solely due to an inadequate or absent warning.” Chrysler Corp. v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723, 724, 450 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1994).

The issue of failure to warn, including the lack of any warning or the adequacy of any warning, is one that the jury must resolve. See, e.g., Dorsey Trailers Southeast v. Brackett, 363 S.E.2d 779, 782 (Ga. App. 1987); Bryant v. BGHA, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1389-90 (M.D. Ga. 2014); Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 645 (1983)(“Whether a duty to warn exists thus depends upon foreseeability of the use in question, the type of danger involved, and the foreseeability of the user’s knowledge of the danger. See Greenway v. Peabody International Corp., 163 Ga.App. 698, 294 S.E.2d 541 (1982). Such matters generally are not susceptible of summary adjudication and should be resolved by a trial in the ordinary manner. Beam v. Omark Ind., Inc., 143 Ga.App. 142, 145, 237 S.E.2d 607 (1977).”).

Do You Know What’s In Your Drain Opener?

October 27, 2014 | Robin Frazer Clark

I am working on a products liability case today that I have pending in Cobb County, Georgia in which my client was severely burned by a sulfuric acid drain opener (SADO). “Burn” may not be the accurate term…it is more like she had her skin dissolved by the sulfuric acid drain opener. She has been treated in three burn units and has undergone nine surgeries, including numerous skin grafts and fractional laser procedures. Yet she still has permanent scars over much of her body.

Do you know what’s in the drain opener you have under your sink right now? Have you ever used a Sulfuric Acid Drain Opener? My guess is you have no idea whether you have ever used a sulfuric acid drain opener. SADO’s, as they are known in the chemical industry, are arguably too hazardous to sell to the public for use by the average consumer. And the average consumer has no idea just how ultra hazardous they are. SADO’s are often pure sulfuric acid, which nothing much added to them except water. They are typically “professional strength” and really should only be sold to professionals. Some manufacturers of SADO’s don’t even employ chemists to create their formula nor was their chemical formula originally created by an actual chemist. This makes the product extraordinarily dangerous to consumers as no professional chemist has even verified what is in the formula so the manufacturer really has no idea of exactly what they are selling.

In many cases, the label on SADO’s are not adequate to warn a lay user sufficiently about the type of chemical burns they can cause if they come in contact with a person’s skin or body. Keep in mind that in many third world countries SADO’s are used as a weapon, often in domestic violence incidents in which men throw sulfuric acid onto women’s faces to disfigure them permanently. This is the same strength sulfuric acid that is being sold to consumers as a SADO. For many years a group of concerned chemists have tried to get the sale of sulfuric acid drain openers banned in the United States. These concerned chemists have petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission numerous times to try to get the Commission to take action to ban SADO’s because they are simply too hazardous for use by the average homeowner. But, apparently, politics always seems to get in the way and nothing happens. Manufacturers keep making money and uninformed consumers keep getting harmed.