Seek Medical Attention

If you experienced an injury while riding an e-scooter, your priority should be to seek medical attention. Even if you feel fine, get checked out by a healthcare professional to ensure you do not have any underlying injuries. Additionally, seeking medical attention will ensure that your injuries are documented, which can be important if you decide to pursue a personal injury or product liability claim with the help of the best Plymouth MA lawyers at The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III.

Preserve Evidence

Preserving evidence is crucial in any product liability lawsuit, and an e-scooter accident is no exception. If possible, take photos of the accident scene, the e-scooter, and any injuries you sustained. Additionally, obtain the contact information of any witnesses to the accident. This information can support your personal injury claim and increase your chances of obtaining compensation for your injuries.

Contact an Experienced Personal Injury Attorney

If you have been injured while riding an e-scooter and would like to file a lawsuit, contact a team of experienced Plymouth MA lawyers as soon as possible. An attorney can help you understand your legal rights and options and can assist you in pursuing a personal injury claim. In Massachusetts, the law requires that all motor vehicle accidents, including e-scooter accidents, be reported to the police. An attorney can help you navigate this process and ensure that all necessary reports are filed.

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III | Product Liability Lawsuit

If you have been injured while riding an e-scooter in Massachusetts, it is important to take immediate action to protect your legal rights and seek compensation for your injuries. Seek medical attention, contact an experienced attorney to assist with your product liability lawsuit, and preserve evidence to increase your chances of obtaining a favorable outcome in your personal injury case. By taking these steps, you can ensure that you are fully compensated for your injuries and losses. Contact the lawyers at The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III to get a quote today.

Personal Injury Claims FAQ

If you’re the injured party in a personal injury case, the party found liable for the harm you’ve suffered is typically responsible for paying any settlement or damages. This can include paying for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages resulting from your injury.

What if my medical bills are more than my settlement?

If your medical bills exceed the amount of your claim settlement, you may be able to negotiate with your healthcare provider to reduce the amount you owe. Alternatively, your personal injury lawyer Cape Cod may be able to negotiate with the at-fault party’s insurance company for a higher settlement.

Is pain and suffering separate from medical bills?

In addition to medical bills, victims of accidents may also be entitled to recover damages for pain and suffering. Pain and suffering encompasses both physical and emotional pain caused by the accident. This can include physical discomfort, such as headaches or back pain, as well as emotional distress, such as anxiety or depression. However, our personal injury lawyer MA notes pain and suffering can be difficult to quantify, and it is often left to a jury to determine the appropriate amount of compensation.

On the other hand, medical bills refer to the actual cost of treatment that the victim incurs at a medical facility. These bills can include costs for hospital stays, medication, surgery, and other medical procedures. Together, pain and suffering and medical bills are both important factors to consider when seeking compensation with your personal injury lawyer Cape Cod for an accident.

Who gets the insurance check for my medical bills?

There are three common instances:

1. If your health insurance company receives your medical bills, the insurance company will typically receive the check.
2. If you paid the bills out of pocket, the check will be sent to you.
3. If you have a personal injury lawyer MA, the insurance company may send the check directly to them. This ensures that any outstanding legal fees are covered before you receive the remaining settlement amount.

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III | Personal Injury Lawyer MA

While personal injury settlements will provide financial relief, we’d like to note that the process may take some time. Before the courts resolve your claim, you must still start paying any medical bills incurred. While this is inconvenient, most settlements include reimbursements for incurred bills. A qualified personal injury lawyer MA can help you navigate the complexities of personal injury law and work to ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve. With over 100 years of combined case experience, it’s no wonder we’ve come to be known as the best personal injury lawyer Massachusetts. To learn more about our firm, personal injury law, or to schedule a consultation, visit our website today.

Understanding A Design Defect Products Liability Claim

A design defect product liability lawsuit arises when there is a flaw in the product design that makes it inherently dangerous or defective. The product may have been manufactured properly, but the design is flawed, making it dangerous or defective. This means the product is unreasonably dangerous, even when used as intended.

A design defect claim will require proof that the product’s design makes it unreasonably dangerous and that the manufacturer or seller knew of the danger or should have known. To prove a design defect, the defective product lawyer will typically need to show that there was a safer, economically feasible alternative design that the manufacturer could have used.

Types of Design Defects

There are three types of design defects that can lead to a product liability lawsuit:

Manufacturing Design Defects

Manufacturing design defects occur when there is a problem with the manufacturing process that causes the product to be dangerous. This can include using the wrong materials or not assembling the product correctly.

Marketing Design Defects

Marketing design defects refer to inadequate warnings or instructions about the product. If a product requires special knowledge or training to use safely, adequate warnings and instructions must be provided.

Inherent Design Defects

Inherent design defects are flaws in the product’s design that make it unreasonably dangerous. For example, a car with a design flaw that causes it to roll over easily may be deemed inherently defective.

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III | Defective Product Lawyer

If you have been injured by a product that you believe was defectively designed, you may have a product liability claim against the manufacturer or seller of the product. A design defect claim will require proof that the product was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous and that the manufacturer or seller knew of the danger or should have known. It’s important to consult an experienced defective product lawyer at The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III to discuss your case and your legal options.

Manufacturing Defects

A manufacturing defect is a term used to describe a flaw or abnormality in a product that was caused by a mistake or error during the manufacturing process. This defect makes the product different from other products of the same type and can result in the product being unsafe or unusable.

A defective product can also cause financial hardship for the consumer, as they may be required to pay for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages. This is why it is important for consumers to understand their legal right to a defective product attorney.

In addition to helping individual consumers, a product defect attorney also plays an important role in promoting public safety. By holding manufacturers accountable for their products, they help to ensure that companies take the necessary steps to identify and address potential defects before they reach the market.

Design Defects

Unlike manufacturing defects, which occur during the production process, design defects are present in the product from the outset. This means that every product made according to the same design is potentially dangerous. Examples of design defects include a car that has a tendency to roll over easily or a medical device that is prone to failure. One of the most infamous medical device design defects is the hernia mesh case.

Design defects can be particularly dangerous because they affect an entire line of products, rather than just a few isolated instances. In order to pursue a design defect claim, a plaintiff must prove that the design of the product was unreasonably dangerous and that there was a feasible alternative design that would have made the product safer. A product defect attorney can help you determine whether you have a valid design defect claim and assist you in pursuing compensation for any injuries or damages you have suffered.

Marketing Defects

Marketing defects are another type of defective product liability claim that can arise when a manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions for the safe use of a product. This can include a failure to disclose known side effects of a medication or a failure to provide sufficient warnings about the dangers of a particular product’s use.

Marketing defects can also occur when a manufacturer fails to provide clear and complete instructions for the proper use and operation of a product. In order to pursue a marketing defect claim, a plaintiff and their product defect attorney must prove that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions and that this failure directly led to their injury or damages.

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III | Product Defect Attorney

Defective products are more than just lost money, they can result in lost lives. You have the right to a product defect attorney. If you or a loved one has been injured by a malfunctioning product, the experts at our Cape Cod law firms are here to help. With over a century of case experience, and a passion for compassion, we’ve stood the test of time. If you’re ready to receive personalized and dedicated legal representation, contact us to speak to a defective product attorney today.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that in October 2015, a plane crashed in Mexico, killing all four people that were aboard. The cause of the crash was determined to be a failure of the plane’s horizontal stabilizer actuator. The plane was owned by a Massachusetts corporation. In 2012, the owner sent the plane to a facility owned by another Massachusetts company, where it underwent an inspection, maintenance, and repairs of various parts, including the plane’s horizontal stabilizer actuator.

Allegedly, representatives of the estates of the people who died in the crash instituted a lawsuit against the owner and repair facility in a Massachusetts court, asserting claims of negligence and breach of warranty. The defendants moved for the court to apply Mexican law to the case, but their motion was denied.

Conflicts of Law Analysis

The parties agreed that there was a conflict between Massachusetts’ and Mexico’s law of damages, but they could not agree as to which laws applied. Thus, the court was required to engage in a choice of laws analysis, pursuant to the Massachusetts conflict of laws rules, to determine which state’s laws were applicable.

The court explained that Massachusetts follows a functional approach to the choice of law issue. The approach, which was guided by the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, assesses the interest of the states involved, the parties, and the interstate judicial system as a whole. In cases involving personal injury or death, the Restatement requires the application of the local law where the harm occurred, unless another state has a greater relationship to the incident and the parties with respect to one or more issues.

In the subject case, the plaintiffs argued that Massachusetts law had a greater connection to the occurrence and the parties. The court ultimately agreed and affirmed the trial court ruling.

Confer with an Experienced Cape Cod Attorney

Defective products can cause devastating injuries, and the parties responsible for manufacturing or maintaining such products may be held liable for any harm caused by their devices. If you lost a loved one in an accident caused by a defective product, you have the right to seek damages, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The experienced personal injury lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can advise you of your options and help you seek justice for your losses. You can contact us via our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

The History of the Case

It is reported that in July 2013, the decedent was operating a motorcycle manufactured by the defendant when he collided with another vehicle that was making a U-turn. The impact caused the motorcycle’s fuel tank to burst, which subsequently caused a fire. The decedent sustained second and third-degree burns that required over twenty surgeries to treat. He later died by suicide.

It is alleged that the plaintiff instituted a product liability lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of the decedent’s estate. The defendant moved for the plaintiff’s expert report to be deemed inadmissible and for summary judgment. The court granted both motions, and the plaintiff appealed. Expert Testimony in Product Liability Cases

The appellate court noted that, under Massachusetts law, the plaintiff bore the burden of proving each element of his claim beyond a reasonable doubt. In product liability cases in which the nature of the defect and the link between the defect and the accident are complex, expert testimony is required to establish the elements of the claim.

In the subject case, the appellate court found that the plaintiff’s expert witness did not offer an opinion that the alleged defect, an improper weld on the right side of the motorcycle tank, caused the decedent’s harm. The appellate court explained that without expert testimony on the issue of causation, the plaintiff could not establish that there was more than a mere scrap of evidence that warranted the submission of the issue of liability to the jury. As the plaintiff could not establish liability, the appellate court found that his claims were properly dismissed via summary judgment.

Talk to a Skillful Cape Cod Attorney

Defective products often cause significant and irreparable harm, and the parties responsible for making and selling such products should be held accountable. If you were injured by a dangerous product, you should talk to an attorney about your options for seeking damages. The skillful product liability lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can assess the circumstances surrounding your harm and aid you in seeking the maximum damages recoverable under the law. You can reach us through our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a meeting.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a surgical replacement of his hip, which used a hip replacement system designed and produced by the defendant manufacturers and distributed by the defendant seller. He suffered heavy metal poisoning due to the device, which led to pain, bone loss, tissue damage, and other injuries and ultimately required surgical removal. He asserted numerous claims against the defendants in a civil lawsuit, including a negligence claim against the defendant seller. At issue was whether the claims against the defendant seller were sufficient.

Establishing a Distributor’s Liability for a Defective Product

Under Massachusetts law, to successfully establish negligence, a plaintiff must show via a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, a departure from that duty, legal or proximate cause, and actual injury or harm. Here, the defendant manufacturers removed the case to federal court, arguing, in part, that the plaintiff had no chance of recovering on his claim against the defendant seller and, therefore, the court could exercise diversity jurisdiction over the claim.

Specifically, the defendant manufacturers argued that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege a duty or causation. The court disagreed and ultimately remanded the matter back to state court. The court explained that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the defendant seller knew or reasonably should have known of the safety issues with the hip replacement system but failed to warn anyone and continued to promote it over other products. In other words, they did not sell it passively but actively marketed it and trained people in its use. Thus, the court found that a finder of fact would reasonably conclude that the defendant seller breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. As such, the court rejected the defendant manufacturers’ argument.

Meet with an Experienced Cape Cod Attorney

Dangerous products can cause severe and lasting harm, and entities that sell harmful devices should be held accountable. If you suffered injuries due to a dangerous product, you should speak to a lawyer about your rights. The experienced product liability lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, are skilled at handling the complexities of cases arising out of harm caused by defective products, and if you hire us, we will advocate tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us via our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a meeting.

Injuries Suffered by the Plaintiff

The complainant had a hernia that needed to be repaired surgically, according to reports. The defendant’s mesh was implanted into her abdomen during the surgery. The mesh eventually broke down, resulting in serious inside damage. She subsequently sued the defendant, claiming carelessness, strict liability for poor manufacturing and design, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment, among other things. The action was filed in federal court in Massachusetts because the plaintiff lived in Nebraska and the defendant’s primary business location was in Massachusetts. The defendant then moved for the plaintiff’s claims to be dismissed.

Federal Choice of Law Considerations

The court said that it must first perform a choice of law analysis to identify which state’s laws applied to the plaintiff’s claims before deciding whether they were adequate to defeat the defendant’s request to dismiss. The court must conduct an examination using the forum state’s choice of law rules to determine which laws apply in cases brought in federal court under diverse jurisdiction.

Courts in Massachusetts must follow the Restatement Second of the Conflict of Law when performing a choice of law analysis. According to that viewpoint, tort claims should be handled per the law of the state where the purported harm arose unless a different state has a more significant connection to the underlying causes of action. Because the plaintiff lived in Nebraska and the harm happened there, the court decided that Nebraska law should apply. As a result, the court used Nebraska law to dismiss some of the plaintiff’s claims, but not all of them.

Consult a Trusted Personal Injury Lawyers on Cape Cod

Companies that create and sell hazardous items should be held liable for any injuries caused by their negligence. If you were hurt by a dangerous product, you could be owed compensation, and you should speak to an attorney. The capable lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can inform you of your options for seeking justice and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us through our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a meeting.

The Injuries Sustained by the Plaintiff

The plaintiff is said to have taken a supplement created and sold by the defendant. She then experienced serious negative effects, prompting her to initiate a lawsuit against the defendant. She claimed negligence, breach of warranty, failure to warn, and product liability in her complaint. The defendant attempted to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, claiming that federal law preempted them. The request was denied by the trial court, and the defendant appealed, resulting in a reversal of the trial court’s decision on reasons other than those alleged by the defendant.

Pleading Requirements in Federal Cases With State Law Claims

In cases involving FDA-regulated items, the appeal court concluded that state law claims are not preempted by federal law as long as they parallel rather than complement federal requirements. The court went on to say that in such cases, a plaintiff does not have to establish the particular flaw in the device or the specific federal regulation that was allegedly broken in order for a claim to be successful.

In other words, there is no heightened pleading standard, and a plaintiff is not required to plead with more clarity than Massachusetts law requires. As a result, because all of the plaintiff’s claims met the federal criteria, the plaintiff only needed to plead facts sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under state law in the matter at hand. The plaintiff, however, failed to assert circumstances that would allow her to recover from the defendant under Massachusetts law, according to the court. She specifically failed to include in her complaint facts that, if found true, would show that the defendant’s product caused her asserted harm. As a result, the defendant’s request to dismiss was granted.

Speak with a Practiced Massachusetts Attorney

Companies that manufacture items that cause unjustified injury should be held accountable, and anyone who has been hurt by a defective device should contact an attorney as quickly as possible. If you were injured by a harmful medical device, the practiced Massachusetts attorneys of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III can assist you in gathering the facts necessary to obtain the maximum amount of compensation available under the law. You can reach us through our form online or at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed as a machinist for a company that was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant. She suffered injuries while using a machine and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, asserting claims of negligence and negligent supervision and averring that it failed to provide a safe workplace, reasonably supervise the worksite, or properly train its employees.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that it was immune from civil liability under the exclusivity provisions of the Massachusetts Worker’s Compensation Act (the Act). The court denied the defendant’s motion, and it appealed. Determining Whether an Action is Barred by the Exclusivity Provision of the Act

The Act’s exclusivity provision bars an employee from recovering workers’ compensation benefits and then suing her employer to recover damages for an injury covered by the Act. To determine whether a personal injury action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act, a court will consider whether the employer is an insured party liable for the payment of compensation benefits and whether the employer directly employs the employee.

In the subject case, the appellate court explained that, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the plaintiff did not bear the burden of proving that the defendant was not her direct employer in response to the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Instead, the defendant was required to establish it was her direct employer.

Further, the appellate court disagreed with the defendant’s assertion that the facts in the plaintiff’s complaint implied that the defendant was her direct employer, noting that assessing whether an employer-employee exists is a fact-intensive inquiry. Based on the foregoing, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted Massachusetts Attorney

People who suffer bodily harm due to the negligence of others are often entitled to damages, but there may be statutory limitations that preclude them from pursuing claims against certain parties. If you suffered harm due to a defective product, you should meet with an attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue. The Cape Cod lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III can advise you of your rights and help you to seek any damages you may be owed. You can contact us via the form online or at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff was involved in a car accident while riding in a vehicle manufactured and sold by the defendant car company that had headrests made by the defendant manufacturer. She sustained injuries due to the headrest, which she deemed defective. Thus, she filed a product liability lawsuit against the defendants in the federal district court. The defendant manufacturer moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing in part that the court could not validly exercise personal jurisdiction over it. Upon review, the court granted the defendant’s motion.

Establishing Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Defendants

Personal jurisdiction is the term used to define a court’s power to compel parties to abide by its orders. Parties who file a case in a court are deemed to consent to its jurisdiction. In regards to parties who do not consent to a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, though, the Due Process Clause of the constitution protects their liberty interest in not being held to judgments of a forum with which they have no meaningful ties, contacts, or relationships.

The court explained, therefore, that it could not exercise jurisdiction over the defendant manufacturer, absent a showing that its connections with and conduct in Massachusetts were such that it should reasonably anticipate being called into court there. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction is proper in cases in which it is called into question.

Under the prima facie standard of review, a court determining whether it can validly exercise jurisdiction over a defendant will examine whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence which, if proven to be true, would support the findings of fact essential to establishing personal jurisdiction. A plaintiff may not, however, establish personal jurisdiction via unsupported assertions. In the subject case, the court ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to adduce adequate evidence supporting the assertion that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper. Thus, the court granted the motion.

Meet with a Seasoned Cape Cod Attorney

Collisions that are caused by defective car components often cause serious injuries. If you suffered harm in a car accident due to a defective product, it is advisable to meet with an attorney about your potential claims. The seasoned Cape Cod car accident attorneys of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can advise you of your rights and help you to seek the full amount of damages recoverable under the law. You can contact us through the form online or at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case initially filed in Massachusetts state court but removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the plaintiff was a man who was prescribed the drug Levaquin for treatment of a head cold. Levaquin is a quinolone antibiotic also known as levofloxacin. When the plaintiff attempted to get his prescription filled at the defendant pharmacy, the pharmacist who was on duty received a “hard stop” warning on his computer indicating that the plaintiff was allergic to quinolones. The pharmacist looked into the matter further and saw that there was conflicting information that included a prior statement by the plaintiff to the effect that he “in fact had no quinolone allergy” and had been prescribed quinolones on multiple occasions in the past. As per the defendant’s policy in such situations, the pharmacist exercised his “individual judgment,” ultimately deciding to go ahead and dispense the Levaquin.

After suffering an allergic reaction to the medication, the plaintiff filed suit in state court, seeking $650,000 in compensation for his injuries. After the defendant removed the case to federal court, it moved for summary judgment. The district court found that the case had been properly removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, despite the defendant’s meager settlement offer of $5,000. The court also agreed with the defendant that it was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims for negligence, breach of warranty, and unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Massachusetts General. The plaintiff sought appellate review. The Court’s Opinion on Appeal

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. With regard to the plaintiff’s motion to remand the matter to state court, the federal appeals tribunal first noted that there was complete diversity of citizenship (the plaintiff resided in Massachusetts and the defendant in Rhode Island). With regard to the amount in controversial requirement for diversity jurisdiction, the court observed that the plaintiff’s initial good faith demand for $650,000 was more than ample to qualify the case for diversity jurisdiction (the threshold was $75,000).

As to the plaintiff’s remaining arguments on appeal, the court ruled that the district court had acted appropriately in denying the plaintiff’s motion to depose a particular expert witness, given the plaintiff’s delay in seeking relief on this issue. The court also agreed with the lower tribunal’s decision to exclude another expert’s testimony because the expert’s opinion failed to meet the standard of admissibility on both the standard of care for a pharmacist and the likely cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Finally, the court held that summary judgment to the defendant was proper on the plaintiff’s ch. 93A claim, given the failure of the plaintiff’s negligence and product liability claims.

Seek Legal Advice About a Misfilled Prescription Case

Just as doctors, nurses, and hospitals can be held accountable for professional negligence, pharmacies and drugstores can be subject to malpractice actions when they breach the standard of care that applied to a particular situation. If you have questions about a Cape Code pharmaceutical malpractice case, please contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664 or through this website. We look forward to hearing from you.

While not every product mishap will result in an injury or illness significant enough to trigger litigation, some, unfortunately, will. Fortunately, the law provides some protection against unreasonably safe products, provided that the consumer does his or her part to assert a claim in a timely fashion.

As in other types of personal injury litigation, the burden of proof in product injury cases is on the injured individual, so it is important that any evidence concerning the bad product be saved and preserved as possible evidence. Contacting an experienced product liability attorney is also a critical step in the process of receiving fair compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by a defective product.

Consumer Product Recalls

The federal government maintains a website that lists consumer product recalls. It is updated frequently and provides information about who to contact if you have been hurt by the subject product or if you wish to return a recalled item for repairs or a refund. Some of the items recently added to the website include bunk beds that can come apart and cause children to fall, electric blankets that can overheat and burn users, essential oil that was not packaged according to child resistance regulations, snorkels that can release excess material in a way that poses a choking hazard, doorbells that can pose a fire hazard, and chests of drawers that can tip over and entrap small children.

The “what to do” is different for each of these products, but, generally, users are directed to stop using the product and contact the manufacturer or seller via their website, email, or telephone for information concerning a refund, repair, or replacement. For example, a consumer who has purchased one of the potentially dangerous chests of drawers is advised to immediately cease using the chest because of the risk of death or injury. The company will provide pre-paid shipping labels so that consumers may return the items for a full refund or a replacement item. If you have purchased an item that has been recalled, this may be the best course of action, provided that no one in your household has yet been hurt by the bad product.

What If Someone Has Been Hurt?

If there has already been a serious personal injury or wrongful death because of a product that has been recalled, it is best to contact an attorney rather than the maker or seller of the product. There are several reasons for this. First, the product itself should be preserved rather than returned for a refund. As the case develops, it is likely that at least one (and possibly several) experts will need to inspect the product. These individuals may later testify at trial, informing the jury of the details of the product defects. Secondly, the maker of the product may ask the consumer to give a statement concerning the accident or injury. It is advisable that legal counsel be present to represent the consumer and his or her family during any such questioning. Finally, it may be necessary to file a formal complaint in court as soon as possible in order to preserve the statute of limitations. An attorney can advise the injured individual of any upcoming deadlines regarding the filing of necessary paperwork.

Contact a Personal Injury Attorney in Massachusetts About a Defective Product

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III handles defective product cases in and around the Cape Cod area, including Hyannis and Plymouth. To schedule a free consultation, use the contact form on this website or phone us at 888-262-6664.

While it might seem simpler to name only a single defendant, this is rarely wise. Naming multiple defendants can help ensure that the plaintiff ultimately receives what he or she is due if there is a favorable judgment, even if one or more of the defendants proves to be insolvent or has limited resources for satisfying the plaintiff’s claim.

When there are several defendants, each of whom could potentially be held liable for a plaintiff’s personal injuries, it is not unusual for there to be cross-claims between the defendants as each attempts to limit its own monetary outlay to the plaintiff. Experienced product injury lawyers are well-acquainted with these tactics and understand that this “infighting” between the defendants cannot stand in the way of the injured party’s quest for justice.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent products liability lawsuit was a man who allegedly suffered serious injuries to his hand after his foot inadvertently activated a switch on an allegedly defective machine designed, manufactured, and distributed by the defendants. The man’s wife joined him in the suit as a co-plaintiff. According to their complaint, the defendants were liable to them under several legal theories, including negligence, breach of warranty, loss of consortium, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A.

The defendant distributor filed a cross-claim against the defendant designer/manufacturer, asserting claims for indemnification, contribution, and breach of contract. The designer/manufacturer responded with a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that, based on a forum selection and choice of law clause contained in a 1998 “written exclusive distribution agreement” between the defendants, the distributor’s claims against the designer/manufacturer should have been filed in Germany rather than in a United States federal district court.

The Court’s Decision

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the designer/manufacturer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and denied it in part. According to the court, the cross-claims pertaining to contractual and common law indemnification and for breach of contract had to be filed in Germany, per the defendants’ previous agreement. The contribution-from-a-joint-tortfeasor claim was, however, held to be properly before the United States federal district court.

In so holding, the court examined whether the agreement at issue was permissive or mandatory. After determining that it was mandatory due to the use of the word “shall,” the court went on to address the designer/manufacturer’s assertion regarding whether the forum selection clause was so broad as to include the common law and contract-based cross-claims at issue. The court then reviewed the relevant language in the agreement, which stated, “All disputes which may arise in connection with this agreement” were to be decided in Germany.

Because the agreement governed the distribution of the machinery upon which the plaintiff was allegedly injured, the court found that the distributor’s cross-claims “easily [fell]” within the forum selection clause because they arose “in connection with” the agreement; thus, the indemnification and breach of contract claims should be resolved by a German court. With respect to the distributor’s contribution claim, however, the federal district court opined that this claim could be – and should be – effectively resolved by the United States federal district court jury, who would be called upon to decide whether the defendants were liable to the plaintiffs as either a joint tortfeasors or as a sole tortfeasor.

Need Help with a Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

Products can be held unreasonably dangerous or defective for many different reasons – poor design, construction defects, improper labeling, etc. An experienced Cape Cod products liability attorney can help you understand these different types of claims and file suit against the various defendants who can be held liable in such a situation. To learn more about our services, call The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664 or contact us through this website. Please do not delay in seeking legal counsel regarding your defective product claim, as numerous statutes of limitation and/or statutes of repose may limit the time you have for filing suit against the responsible designer, maker, distributor, or seller of the product that injured you or your loved one.

Battery Banks Recalled

Most of us rely heavily on our cellphones these days, and a dead battery can disrupt not only our entertainment but also our ability to communicate and, when we are traveling, navigate. Portable power banks have become very popular, as we often need additional battery power to get us through a long day or a weekend trip. Unfortunately, power banks are not without risk. Recently, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a recall of certain 10,000 mAh power banks because the banks’ battery may overheat and cause a fire. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled products immediately.

Interestingly, these banks are not associated with a particular brand. Rather, they may contain a company logo on the front and or back of the product. This is because they were distributed as promotional items at meetings or other events rather than sold directly to the public. If you have suffered a fire or a burn caused by one of these banks or another lithium-ion battery product, you may be able to seek compensation via a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the device.

Travel Mugs, Candles, and Gas Grills Creates Fire Hazard

Holiday mugs sold at a national retailer have also been recalled because of labeling issues. Although the mugs’ labels stated that they are microwave safe, this is not true. If the consumer places one of the metallic printed mugs into the microwave, sparks may result. This can lead to a fire. Consumers may return the mugs to the store for a full refund. The manufacturer has a toll-free number for consumers who have been injured or suffered a fire as a result of the faulty labeling on the mugs.

Certain frosted balsam jar candles are also on the CPSC recall list because the glass jar may break while the candle is lit, causing both a danger of fire and also of laceration. At least six jars have been blamed for fires so far. Certain propane gas grills have been found to have an issue with their gas regulator hoses; the hose can melt and cause a fire.

Talk to a Massachusetts Product Injury Attorney

Consumers who are hurt by dangerous or defective products have certain legal rights, including the right to seek fair compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and other losses caused by the bad product. To talk to an experienced Cape Cod products liability lawyer, please call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, at 888-262-6664. Be mindful that there are statute of limitations and statutes of repose that limit the time period during which an injured consumer or deceased consumer’s family file a claim in court for money damages, so talk to an attorney as soon as possible if your family is suffering because of a products liability injury.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case (unreported), the plaintiff was a man who suffered a closed head injury and bilateral leg amputations after falling onto subway tracks (owned and maintained by the defendant transportation authority) and being struck by a train. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, averring that the defendant was negligent in failing to adequately staff the station with a safety inspector or a customer service agent (CSA) on the day the accident occurred.

The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing (among other things) that it was immune from liability for the plaintiff’s failure-to-staff claim, citing the discretionary function exception contained in Massachusetts General Laws ch. 258, § 10(b). The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its motion under the doctrine of present execution.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeals court decided that the defendant was immune from liability on the plaintiff’s claim that it failed to staff the station with sufficient personnel. Reviewing the trial court judge’s decision de novo, the court noted that, under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, a “public employer” such as the defendant was immune from claims based on its exercise or performance (or its failure to perform) a discretionary duty or function. In deciding whether the situation at hand presented a discretionary function, the court determined that the applicable inquiry was whether the defendant had any discretion as to what course of conduct to follow under the circumstances.

After determining that the question of whether to staff a CSA or safety inspector at the station on the day of the accident was discretionary because there was no statute, regulation, or established agency practice actually requiring the defendant to do so, the court went on to hold that, as a matter of law, the defendant had discretion over whether and how to allocate CSAs and safety inspectors to its stations and, thus, § 10(b) immunity applied. Accordingly, the trial court should have granted summary judgment to the defendant as to the plaintiff’s theory regarding insufficient personnel.

Have Questions for a Massachusetts Injury Lawyer?

The negligence of governmental entities, corporations, and individuals can cause serious harm and lifelong injuries to others. If you need to talk to an experienced Cape Cod personal injury and wrongful death lawyer about a recent accident, please contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, at 888-262-6664 and schedule a free case evaluation. We handle many types of accident cases, including car and truck wrecks, slip and fall and premises liability cases, and product liability accidents. We also handle medical malpractice, nursing home negligence, and dog bite cases.

The unfortunate fact is that you cannot know, with absolute certainty, which items are safe, and which are not. However, there are some ways to research a particular product before making a purchase.

The federal government has a website that is somewhat of a “clearinghouse” for recalls and product advisories concerning several different products, including consumer products aimed at children and child safety seats.

How to Research Potentially Dangerous Products

By going to the government’s recall website, you can find out the very latest information about many different types of products. For example, the Fisher-Price company recently issued a recall of a popular “sleeper” device marketed to the parents of young infants. According to the website, about 4.7 million of these products (which are made in China) have been sold since they were first introduced about 10 years ago.

During that same period, approximately 30 babies have allegedly died while using the sleeper. Some of these infants may have perished after rolling over in the device. Some experts on infant mortality, including deaths caused by sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), recommend placing an infant on his or her back while sleeping. A product that allows a baby to get into a position in which he or she is restrained while on his or her stomach could be very problematic.

Take Action Against Dangerous Products

If you believe that you or a loved one has been hurt by a dangerous product, you can contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission online or via telephone at 800-638-2772. This step can help set in motion a product advisory or eventual recall. However, a recall does not provide money damages to those who have been hurt by a faulty product. In order to obtain such a remedy, it is usually necessary to file a product liability lawsuit against the maker or seller of the item in question.

In a Cape Cod product injury case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving liability against the defendant. Depending upon the circumstances, the plaintiff’s theory of liability may include defective design, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, strict product liability, negligence, and/or breach of warranty.

Speak to a Cape Code Product Injury Attorney

The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, in Hyannis and Plymouth handle a wide range of product liability lawsuits, including those involving defective child products, toys, and sports equipment. For a free consultation, call us at 888-262-6664. Please keep in mind that product liability lawsuits must be filed in a timely fashion, as claims not filed within the applicable statute of limitations and/or statute of repose will most likely be dismissed without consideration of the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.

Product injury lawsuits are not easy, and litigation can be lengthy. In many cases, there are a number of obstacles that must be overcome, if the plaintiff is to ultimately receive fair compensation for his or her injuries (or for a loved one’s death).

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal case, the plaintiffs had filed individual lawsuits against the defendant pharmaceutical companies, asserting that the defendants had engaged in “off label” prescription drug marketing and fraud intended to push their antidepressant drugs on minors for whom the Federal Drug Administration had not approved usage. The plaintiffs’ actions were aggregated for pretrial proceedings by order of a multi-district litigation panel.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered summary judgment for one of the defendants as to two of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)–(d), holding those plaintiffs could not demonstrate injury. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-based allegations as deriving from their noncognizable RICO claims.

The Court’s Holding

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims brought by two of the four plaintiffs, vacated the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of additional documents, and otherwise affirmed the challenged district court rulings. In so holding, the court found that the FDA’s 2009 approval of one of the drugs at issue did not preclude the jury from concluding that the off-label uses of the drugs in question were ineffective in treating pediatric depression. Thus, the district court had erred in granting summary judgment on the RICO and state-law claims on this issue.

The court went to acknowledge that, in addition to demonstrating economic injury, a RICO plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s racketeering conduct caused his or her injury. The appellate court then agreed with the plaintiffs that the district court had erred in holding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue.

The court also affirmed the lower tribunal’s denial of class certification.

Consult a Cape Cod Attorney

Consumers can be injured or killed by many different types of products, including prescription medications. If you or a loved one has suffered physical harm due to a defective or unreasonably dangerous drug, you need legal advice about how to file a claim against the makers and sellers of the medication. To schedule a free case evaluation with an experienced Cape Cod product liability lawyer, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III at 888-262-6664 today. Please be mindful of the statute of limitations and other important deadlines for filing a personal injury or wrongful death claim in Massachusetts; untimely claims are usually dismissed without consideration of their merits.

Related Blog Posts Federal Court Dismisses Product Liability Claim But Allows Massachusetts Man to “Try and Re-Plead” Two Counts Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says Patient Who Took Generic Drug Could Have Claim Against Manufacturer of Name Brand Drug for Failure to Warn, if Defendant Acted Recklessly

Unfortunately, however, there have been several food contamination scares recently that could leave one wondering whether a new diet would indeed be best choice or whether eating “healthier” might end in a Massachusetts food poisoning lawsuit.

The Romaine Lettuce Recall

The United States Food & Drug Administration oversees the safety of the nation’s food supply. Often, this comes in the form of the recall of batch of foods (such as ground beef) processed within a few days time. With the recent romaine lettuce situation, however, the warning (first issued in late November) was much broader. Consumers were urged not eat any romaine lettuce and to throw out any such food product until more information was obtained by the FDA.

The FDA apparently believed that this nationwide warning was necessary to “get ahead of” an emerging, multi-state outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 that was “likely linked” to the consumption of romaine lettuce. Over the next few weeks, there were numerous reports of people being sickened with the E. coli O157:H7 strain, including at least one in Massachusetts.

Other Possibly Contaminated Products

In mid-December, a California-based producer of several other types of lettuce (including red and green leaf lettuces, as well as cauliflower) issued a voluntary recall for some of its products, as well. This recall, however, involved only certain food products harvested over a four-day period. The company’s announcement stated that the recall was being made out of an “abundance of caution” because the produce “may” be contaminated – even though none had yet tested positive.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, symptoms of an infection from E. coli bacteria (which may not manifest immediately after consuming the contaminated product) include stomach cramps, diarrhea, vomiting, and, for some people, a fever. The effects of an infection from E. coli can range from mild to life-threatening. Because of potential complications from such an infection, victims are urged to contact a physician if their illness does not pass within a few days or if they develop a high fever, blood in their stool, or severe dehydration due to vomiting.

What to Do If You Think You Have Been a Food Poisoning Victim

If you or someone in your household is suffering from what you believe may be an E. coli infection or other instance of food poisoning, you may be able to assert a claim against the individual or business responsible for the illness, seeking monetary compensation for past and future medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. To schedule an appointment with an experienced Cape Cod product liability attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at 888-262-6664. Please do not delay in seeking legal (or medical) advice about a possible food contamination case, as such cases demand prompt attention.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Consumers May Be Affected by National Product Recalls ‘Tis the Season to be… Cautious – Recalls that Could Affect Consumers in Massachusetts and Nationwide