Defective Products and Consumer Goods
Whether your case involves a recalled/defective consumer or industrial product, we can help.
Looking out for the consumer. Always.
Consumer and industrial products surround us in our daily lives and are involved in almost everything we do. From the clothes we wear, to the foods we eat, to the medicines we take, to the machines we use, and to the cars we drive, we count on the companies making and selling products to take all the appropriate and necessary steps to ensure that the products are safe for normal use.
A defective product is something that is reasonably capable of inflicting substantial harm or causing injury to both people using the product as well as others who may be in the vicinity of it. While some defective products are easily identified, the more complex the product, the more complex the task is to prove and show to a jury that it is defective. SUGARMAN can help.
Because of the vast numbers of products sold from sources world-wide, dangerous products can and do regularly come to market and cause serious harm. In addition, numerous legislative acts have loosened the requirements, most notably in the medical device and pharmaceutical industries, that companies conduct pre-market tests and trials to ensure that their products are safe for use and consumption. All of this leads to an environment where potentially dangerous and defective products are being sold to consumers on a regular basis.
When people are injured or killed by a defective product, Massachusetts law provides some strong protections. It is, in effect, illegal to make or sell an unreasonably dangerous product in Massachusetts. In addition, the act of selling a defective product exposes a manufacturer, distributor or seller of the product not just to payment of the damages for the harm caused by the product, but in some circumstances allows the victims to obtain double or treble damages and attorneys’ fees.
Proving that a product is defective and that recovery should be had is not simple and requires, almost by definition, a lawyer with years of experience handling such matters, as well as extensive resources. Our lawyers have a full range of experts available to successfully review and litigate product liability cases, including engineers specializing in biomechanical, motor vehicle, chemical, industrial, materials, civil and electrical engineering. SUGARMAN’s personal injury lawyers are committed not just to each individual case, but to the cause of product safety.
Our attorneys believe that our product liability work serves both the cause of justice for individual victims and the cause of product safety to prevent defective products from injuring future victims. For example, work of our attorneys led to the recall of over 21,000 dangerous inflatable pool slides.
If you or a loved one have been effected by a defective product, the injury lawyers at SUGARMAN are here to help.
Types of Defective Products & Consumer Goods
Defective / Recalled Consumer and Household Products
Despite continuing safety advances, some household products continue to needlessly cause injury or death to consumers.Learn More
Pool slide fatality
SUGARMAN lawyers secured $20.6 million in punitive and compensatory damages for a Colorado man whose wife was critically injured from a defective pool slide sold online and in stores by Toys R Us. The slide was imported from China and did not comply with federal standards regulating swimming pool slides. The jury award was the largest wrongful death/personal injury verdict in Massachusetts in 2011.
Defective consumer product - Child dies due to carbon monoxide poisoning
Settlement of wrongful death case on behalf of a family who lost a child as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning. SUGARMAN attorneys brought product liability and general negligence claims alleging improper installation of a residential boiler, and a defect in the boiler which allowed it to create and introduce high concentrations of carbon monoxide into the home during foreseeable weather events, such as heavy snow storms.
doCanto v. Ametek, Inc., 367 Mass. 776 (1975)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a jury verdict to a SUGARMAN client for injuries caused by a defectively designed laundry machine. The case established precedent allowing into evidence safety changes made after the manufacture of the defective machine.
Defective Industrial Equipment, Vehicles and Products
Many already dangerous factory and construction jobs are made doubly so by defectively designed and manufactured products and equipment that unnecessarily expose workers to a severe risk of catastrophic or life-altering injuries.Learn More
Defective product - Industrial plastic roll-stand causes hand injury
Settlement in product liability suit where the plaintiff suffered a workplace hand injury caused by roll-stand. The manufacturer of the machine had failed to properly guard a nip point with a barrier guard, light curtain, electric eye, trip wire, or presence-sensing device to prevent workers from coming into contact with nip rolls.
Firefighter’s leg amputated due to defective fire truck
Product liability claim was brought against the manufacturer and distributor of the truck for failing to design the truck with a safety mechanism to prevent uncontrolled movement in the event of a shift into gear while pumping.
Failure to maintain equipment - Power plant accident causes worker's injuries
Settlement against power plant and safety contractor for twenty-six-year-old boilermaker apprentice who was severely injured when he was violently sucked into a boiler drum which had not been properly de-energized for contractor work during an annual shutdown.
Defective product - Airplane cargo loader
Settlement in product liability lawsuit for a Boston airline worker who sustained fractures of his pelvis and hip when the safety rails on a cargo loader failed to activate, allowing a 1,500 lb. pallet to move off the loader and land on the worker after the pallet fell approximately 15 feet. The accident occurred due to a manufacturing defect in an electronic sensor used to activate the safety rails whenever the loader was in operation.
Defective scissor lift injures construction worker
Settlement in product liability suit for construction worker who sustained severe crush and cardiovascular injuries due to the defective design of a safety device in an elevating scissor lift that allowed the lift to rise due to inadvertent contact with the joystick - the very hazard the safety device was intended to prevent.
Defective product - Industrial plastic roll-stand
Settlement in product liability suit where the plaintiff suffered a workplace hand injury caused by roll-stand. The manufacturer of the machine had failed to properly guard a nip point with a barrier guard, light curtain, electric eye, trip wire, or presence-sensing device to prevent workers from coming into contact with nip rolls.
Defective product - Industrial machine
Personal injury settlement against automotive fabric company for a worker who suffered fractures to his arm when caught in an industrial winding machine due to improper training, staffing and supervision, and improper warnings on the machine.
Defective aerial lift control design
Settlement reached for an electrical apprentice working on the Big Dig. The worker suffered an abdominal crush injury and an esophageal tear because of a malfunction with the bucket controls.
Construction accident - Defective formwork
Product liability settlement reached against the distributor of TAR Waller and the general contractor for injuries sustained by a construction foreman who fell when loop on wall formwork broke.
Hooper v. Davis-Standard Corp, et al., 482 F. Supp 2d 157 (2007)
After SUGARMAN lawyers successfully resolved a product liability action in favor of a machine worker injured by a defective industrial machine (recovering a substantial settlement from the machine manufacturer), the worker's employer tried to bring an action against the same manufacturer for its business loss. The machine manufacturer successfully defeated the claims of the employer.
Griffin v. General Motors Corp., 380 Mass. 362 (1980)
Jury verdict against General Motors affirmed on appeal, in a case where an improperly designed car allowed fumes from the engine to enter the passenger compartment, explode, and severely burn the driver.