The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recalled three eye drop brand linked to serious vision loss, death and serious infections. See list of brands that they are recommending you stop using: Brands to Stop Using.
For additional recalls see FDA List.
At the Dolan Law Firm, our personal injury lawyers fight for our clients. We have the experience and resources to get results in your case. Contact our office to schedule a free evaluation of your case.
Written By Chris Dolan and Carole Okolowicz
This week’s question comes from John from San Francisco, who asks: What is the difference between having a trial versus going to mediation?
Dear John,
There are many ways to resolve a legal dispute, whether a lawsuit is filed or not. Most people have heard of a trial in front of a jury because the media has popularized it. However, most cases do not go to trial. Experts have estimated that some 98% of all legal disputes resolve before trial. I will explain these options for resolving legal disputes: settlement, mediation, arbitration, and trial.
Most cases resolve through settlement. Mediation is a method used to achieve a settlement. (More on that later.) Where criminal cases typically seek to put a person in jail, civil cases seek monetary compensation for the harm caused. Since the goal is for the suing person to get money if the person sued agrees to pay, there is no longer a need for the lawsuit. Lawyers often write a demand letter, which is a letter that lays out the known facts of the case, any evidence the plaintiff has in their possession (a police report, medical records, photos, employment records), and the legal reasons why a jury would award money should the case go to trial. Sometimes the two sides can work out a deal through informal communications like emails and phone calls. In these situations, the plaintiff will typically agree not to file a lawsuit concerning the matter and the defendant will agree to pay the agreed amount. Note that this is a voluntary settlement. Neither party is forced to pay; no party is forced to dismiss the case or agree to not sue. The parties decide to avoid litigation, or further litigation, by resolving the matter informally.
If informal settlement negotiations are not possible, the parties may seek to resolve the matter through mediation. Mediation is a means to achieve a voluntary settlement. When parties agree to mediate, they hire a neutral person to help resolve the case. At an agreed-upon time and place (or remotely), the parties go into separate rooms and the neutral mediator talks separately to both sides. Many mediators are retired judges or seasoned litigators so they will often provide insights as to how a jury might think about certain aspects of the case. The mediator’s goal is to get both sides to agree on a settlement amount. As with informal settlement negotiations, each party typically writes a brief that, like a demand letter, lays out the facts, law, and evidence.
It is a common saying that a good mediation is one in which both sides leave unhappy. The plaintiff worries they could have gotten more; the defendant worries they paid too much. But the benefits of settling at mediation are great. As with settling through informal negotiations, the parties save on continued litigation costs, including the cost of a trial which can be very expensive. There is a cost associated with litigation. The mediator charges a fee and mediations can often take a whole day of your attorney’s time. But the cost is much less than trial. Further, trials are risky, and the outcome can be hard to predict. Settlements are certain.
Arbitration is another route to settlement, but unlike the two options discussed above, where resolution is voluntary, it is typically binding. Arbitration is a private court. Like mediation, the parties must voluntarily agree to enter into arbitration; you cannot be forced into arbitration. However, embedded in fine print in many of the agreements we are asked to approve before using everyday items and services, like our cell phones, apps or software, streaming services, rideshare transportation, and medical services, is an agreement to arbitrate any legal disputes.
A judge following state or federal rules oversees your case when a lawsuit is filed. When the parties agree to arbitration, a neutral arbitrator or group of arbitrators oversees your case. The parties may agree to the rules they will follow, which often mirror state or federal rules. Arbitration can be faster, more efficient, and cheaper than court litigation and trial. As in court litigation, the parties can demand documents and information from each other through a discovery process, but it is expedited and limited. Arbitration typically ends with a hearing, like a trial, in which witnesses testify. At the end of the hearing, the arbitrator – not a judge or jury – decides. That decision is binding, which means the parties must abide by it. The parties can only dispute an arbitration award on narrow grounds; the intent is that the decision is final. Arbitration is costly but can often be less expensive than litigation and a trial, depending on the case.
A trial is often the last resort. Trials are a risk for both sides. First, they are expensive. At trial, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove their case. That means unless the defendant agrees that the plaintiff was injured, for example, the plaintiff has to prove that they was injured. That often requires getting the emergency room doctor, nurses, EMTs, orthopedic doctors, primary care doctors, and other health care providers to testify that you were injured. Your attorneys will likely have to hire experts to provide an opinion to persuade the jury. Healthcare providers’ and experts’ time can be very valuable and can get into the thousands of dollars. Your attorneys may hire someone to make trial exhibits to show the jury. Your attorneys will be working on your case night and day before and during the trial. Trials can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Trials are costly and risky.
If you prove your case, a jury may award you damages. Some juries award larger damages, and some juries award smaller damages. Some jurors do not believe in compensating injured persons for pain and suffering and may only agree to award your medical costs. Most jurors in a civil trial must agree to form a verdict.
While trials can be dramatic, they are typically not as fun as watching a trial on tv, even a real one. That is because it is your money, your health, and your life that is going to be decided. If you win, it can be vindicating as well as exhausting. If you lose, it can be defeating – and exhausting. If you are a plaintiff or defendant, you generally must be present each day of the trial. You typically will testify at trial, possibly for a day or multiple days. Trials can be any length, from days to months.
However, sometimes trial is unavoidable. If the other side has offered nothing or very little, and your attorneys believe you have a strong case, you may have no option but to go to trial.
The Dolan Law Firm is a trial firm, meaning we will use all our legal resources available and are always ready to go to trial for you.
CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL CHRISTOPHER DOLAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF, CALLED THE DECISION “A MAJOR VICTORY FOR CONSUMERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
In a landmark decision affecting hundreds of millions of Amazon customers, on April 26, 2021, the California Appellate Court ruled that Amazon can be held liable for injuries caused by defective products sold through Amazon.com.
In the case of Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC, The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate Division ruled that Amazon can be held liable for injuries caused by an exploding hoverboard, manufactured in China, which was purchased on Amazon.com and shipped directly from the manufacturer to the Amazon shopper. San Francisco attorney Christopher Dolan, who represents the plaintiff and argued the appeal, called the ruling “a major victory” for consumers throughout the state.
“Amazon can’t escape liability for defective products it sells to its customers by claiming it is not involved in the marketing, sale and distribution of goods and is just an ‘advertiser,’” he said. “To claim otherwise is just a plain lie.”
In his successful appeal, Dolan argued that Amazon, just like the brick and mortar stores it has put out of business, gets paid a percentage of the sales price on every product sold along with listing fees, handling fees, return fees, etc. “If this hoverboard had been sold at a local mom-and-pop sporting goods store, they could be held liable for the injuries caused by its defects,” he said. “Amazon shouldn’t’get a pass by claiming that they are just a ‘digital matchmaker.’”
The case originated after a consumer purchased a hoverboard that exploded in her home, causing her severe injuries and extensive damage to her home. Kisha Loomis, a resident of Oroville, California, bought her son the hot toy of the season on Amazon in December of 2015. The hoverboard was manufactured by the SmileTo Company in China and sold under the pseudonym TurnUpUp, through Amazon. Before purchas-ing the item, Ms. Loomis had searched Amazon.com for hoverboards, reviewed the selections displayed by its algorithms, and read the ratings and reviews.
Ms. Loomis’ purchase was one of over 380,000 such hoverboards sold by Amazon in Q4 of 2015. Before the product had shipped, and unbeknownst to Ms. Loomis, Amazon had been tracking the growing incidence of hoverboard battery fires and had taken down all hoverboard listings because of concerns for fire danger in the USA and UK. Despite this knowledge, the company allowed the product to be shipped from China to Ms. Loomis and failed to warn her of the danger. It was opened by her son on Christmas and, after less than a week of use, it exploded while charging in a bedroom. Ms. Loomis was severely burned by the rocket-like battery explosion as she attempted to throw the burning toy from her home. The Chinese manufacturer, SmileTo, as well as its U.S. Distributor, Forrnix Technologies, had gone out of business, leaving only Amazon to be held accountable for the injuries to Ms. Loomis and the damages to her home. Amazon persuaded a Los Angeles judge that it was not a seller of products and that it was merely an “online advertiser” and had the case dismissed. Dolan filed an appeal, arguing that the law needed to keep up with the changing digital marketplace and that online retailers, just like brick-and-mortar stores, were an integral part of the marketing, distribution and sales of products and should be held to the same legal standards. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating,
“Amazon thus must face strict liability for Loomis’s fiery encounter with the hoverboard she bought from Amazon’s site. Imposing this duty on Amazon creates financial incentives that back up Amazon’s good words about its concern for customer safety.”
Ms. Loomis, upon hearing the decision stated:
“This restores my faith in the belief that even a single person like myself, through the courts, can get justice and make a difference in this world where we feel overwhelmed by the thought of fighting a Giant like Amazon. I hope this makes the world a safer place so no one else has to go through what my family went through.”
Dolan heralded the decision. “This case will set precedent not only in California but, hopefully, throughout the nation, and it forces Amazon to make sure the products it sells are safe, something it should be doing already,” he said. The case will now be sent back to the LA Superior Court where discovery will continue; a trial date is expected to be set in 2022. Christopher Dolan is available for immediate interviews about the case.
You may reach him at 415-421-2800 or chris@dolanlawfirm.com
Written By: Christopher B. Dolan
This week I will discuss an important case I’m working on seeking to hold one of the world’s largest, most powerful corporations responsible for injuries caused by products they sell to consumers: Amazon.
As we have seen in our communities, what online shopping had not yet brought down, the pandemic dealt a death blow. There to fill the vacuum, as both sinner and savior, was Amazon — keeping goods flowing while getting us all hooked on the dopamine fueled search for bargains and next day delivery.
I studied economics and business in my undergraduate and master’s degrees before studying law. There I learned about the multiplier effect: an initial injection into the economy causing a bigger overall increase in national income. The idea is if the government injects, say for example, 1 trillion dollars into the economy, this will lead to a 1.2 trillion dollar increase in national income. People will have more money to spend (whether through unemployment or by their employers re-opening/staying afloat) and demand for goods will go up, leading to more people being hired and more money being spent on things like transportation of goods, retail rents, clothes, furniture, phones, cars, Starbucks, etc. and the cycle repeats.
Amazon is causing the liquefaction of the foundations of the retail economy with retail workers, transportation workers, parking attendants, janitors, and every related service falling into an abyss. (Think Kmart, Sears, JCPenney, Toys “R” Us.) Money previously injected into local economies is now mainlined into the corporate juggernaut, Amazon, in Seattle. Sure, it creates some jobs but the direct shipment from manufacturers to customer’s results in a net loss of jobs. The money going to Amazon, because of automation and direct shipping, leads to a much lower multiplier effect. The money goes to higher salaries for management and inestimable wealth for Jeff Bezos. How many cups of coffee, cars, planes, clothes and haircuts can one man have? So that money doesn’t multiply through the workforce as before, it consolidates into the ever more exclusive 1% of the 1%.
So what does this have to do with me? I took a case of first impression, not based on its size or value, but based on its potential to protect hundreds of millions of consumers and change the law forever — a case involving a defective hoverboard, purchased on Amazon, which burst into flames on December 31, 2015, burning my client and her home. The cause of the fire was defective lithium-ion batteries. The Chinese manufacturer went out of business as did the U.S distributor. The only one left in the chain of distribution was Amazon. I brought suit on behalf of my client based on a body of law known as “strict product liability,” which holds anyone in the chain of distribution, from manufacturer through the retailer, liable for the injuries caused by dangerous products. The rationale is that they are profiting from the sale, and are in a better position than a consumer to bear or pass along the costs associated with defective products through the purchasing insurance, or increasing the cost of each product a few cents. This is preferable than an individual consumer bearing all of the costs associated with a defective product. In catastrophic cases when a consumer has no health insurance or savings we, the taxpayers, often pay for their medical care and, through Social Security or other programs, their food, clothing and shelter. We end up subsidizing the sale of defective products.
Amazon contends that it is not in the chain of distribution, it just is an electronic platform where buyers and sellers interact with each other, they don’t “sell anything” and, therefore, they should not be held liable for the damages caused by defective products sold through Amazon. I was able to depose Amazon executives and obtain internal corporate documents that showed they charge a listing fee, control the listing content, get a flat fee per-unit-sold, collect the money, process rebates and refunds under their A-Z guarantee, and in the case of the hoverboard, take a 15% cut of the total sale. A trial court sided with Amazon saying that they couldn’t be held liable as a seller and I appealed.
My argument is that they are instrumental in the products being chosen, purchased and delivered, while making a substantial profit. It makes no sense to say that Amazon shouldn’t have the same legal obligation as the very brick-and-mortar stores that Amazon put out of business. Amazon is the 21st century retailer. Their market dominance allows them to put pressure on the manufacturers to make safe products and buy insurance. Strict liability would incentivize Amazon to stop selling dangerous products and purchase insurance with some of their profit so the innocent and unsuspecting consumer (their customer) isn’t left devastated and destitute.
I expect a ruling from the Court of Appeals in the next month. Keep your fingers crossed that the law will, once again, work to equalize the balance of power and hold Corporate America accountable.
This week’s article will focus on a legal battle my firm is currently engaged in with Amazon. On Nov. 28, 2015, our client purchased, through Amazon, a hoverboard for her son for Christmas. The hoverboard was manufactured by a Chinese company, TurnUpUp. On Dec. 16, 2015, the hoverboard arrived. The shipping label said that it had been shipped by Forrinix Technology, a company in Alhambra, California. The hoverboard was opened on Christmas and enjoyed throughout the holiday. On New Year’s Eve, after a day of play, the hoverboard was plugged in to charge overnight. When the mother heard a noise coming from her son’s bedroom and went to investigate, she saw that the hoverboard was burning intensely like a firework, and the bed and bedroom were on fire. During the fire, our client suffered severe burns, and the bedroom sustained heavy fire damage. The cause of the fire was determined to be exploding lithium ion batteries.
Unbeknownst to our client and the rest of the world, Amazon had knowledge of a rash of hoverboard fires. Amazon had sold over 400,000 hoverboards in the weeks leading up to Christmas. It had over 60,000 separate listings for hoverboards at the peak of the season. Amazon had been receiving reports of fires associated with hoverboards around the world. According to testimony I obtained during a deposition of the head of Amazon’s Product Safety and Recalls Team, Mr. Jones, by mid-November 2015, Amazon was “monitoring” hoverboard fire issues, reviewing cases from as far back as January 2014. As Christmas approached, Amazon was in almost daily contact with the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) passing along reports of fires that Amazon had received from its customers.
Indeed, the CPSC had asked Amazon to monitor and report all hoverboard fires as Amazon was the largest single seller of these products in the U.S. and Amazon could directly communicate with purchasers. By Nov. 20, 2015, Amazon was aware that Costco, concerned for the safety of its customers, had pulled hoverboards from their shelves and stopped selling them to the public. Because of concern over fires, on Dec. 4, 2010, Amazon had pulled all hoverboard listings from its United Kingdom sales platform but kept selling them in the U.S. Finally, on Dec. 10, 2015, Doug Herrington, head of Amazon’s North American retail business, made the decision to remove all third-party sellers’ hoverboards from its website because of complaints “of hoverboards/batteries catching fire or exploding, or of sparking battery charges for hoverboards,” and because of concerns that the reports “might be indicative of safety issues of these products across Chinese manufacturing.” Over 60,000 separate listings were taken down from Amazon’s “marketplace.”
Although Amazon stopped selling hoverboards, Amazon neither stopped delivery of those in transit, nor did our client receive any notice from Amazon about the potential for fire.
Under California law, anyone or any enterprise in the “chain of distribution” between the manufacturer and the retailer can be held liable for injuries caused by the product. This makes everybody who is involved in the sale of the product is responsible for making sure the products are safe, which is a benefit to every consumer. They can inspect them, reject them, research them and otherwise determine if they are suitable for sale.
Additionally, they are in the best position to purchase insurance, which can cover injuries caused to consumer and at a fraction the cost of that among the many products they sell, thereby increasing the price only slightly while incorporating the true costs of the product into its sales price. If the true costs, including insurance, make the product too expensive, then application of free market principles should lead to it being discontinued from sale. This increases the cost a few pennies spread across all who use the product, which is fairer than having one injured person bear all the costs and losses associated with the product when they are injured. That is, in effect, a subsidy. (OK, I am revealing what I learned in one of my degrees involving law and economics.)
Amazon claims it is not in the chain of distribution: it is just a new form of classified advertising. This is BS. Amazon is the largest single seller of products. In its own documentation, Amazon calls itself a retailer. It gets paid a posting fee for each item listed. Amazon completely controls the content of each posting and has the right to edit and delete it. Buyers and sellers must communicate only through Amazon, and they cannot contact each other directly. The financial transaction is handled through Amazon. Amazon takes a percentage of every product sold, including shipping. Any product difficulties or complaints must go through Amazon. If a product is returned, Amazon charges the seller a return fee. Amazon offers an A-Z guaranty saying it will make the customer satisfied, including a refund, even if the manufacturer goes out of business. And now Amazon has fulfillment centers where it keeps stock on hand to satisfy orders.
Amazon has changed the landscape of our world, causing people to lose retail jobs by the hundreds of thousands. Amazon is one of the most valuable companies in the world. It must step up and be responsible corporate citizens instead of just not caring what it sells and if the consumer gets hurt.
To change this, I am working with the Consumer Attorneys of California to get a law passed, which would make Amazon just as responsible as any other retailer when the products it sells cause harm. It’s part of what I think a lawyer representing injured people should do: protect their rights and fight against corporate greed.
Christopher B. Dolan is owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Email questions and topics for future articles to help@dolanlawfirm.com.
We serve clients across the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. Our work is no recovery, no fee or also referred to as contingency-based. That means we collect no fee unless we obtain money for your damages and injuries.
This week’s question comes from Aimee F. in Seacliff, who asks,
Q: “I read in last week’s paper that Amazon and other companies are developing robots which will be delivering packages door to door. They look like big ice-chests on wheels. This makes me concerned. My elderly mother does not see well but walks alone between her house and the grocery store. I am afraid she wouldn’t see one of these robots, as it is the last thing she would expect to come across on the sidewalk. If someone gets hit or falls over because of one of these robots, who would be held responsible?”
A: Thanks for your question, Aimee. As you read, Amazon recently publicized that it would be testing ”Scout,” its delivery robot, in Snohomish County, Washington, for delivery of expedited orders (same day to two day) to its Prime members. Designed for the “last mile” of the delivery cycle, the robots will travel to residences using sidewalks. For the near future, the robots will only deliver during daylight and must be accompanied by humans who can intervene if a robot does not navigate well around pets, toys, kids, cars, pedestrians, etc.
Amazon is not the first company to venture into robot delivery. In 2014, a San Francisco company called Starship, founded by the founders of Skype, introduced its robot delivery service, which now boasts over 100,000 km of ground covered and 30,000 deliveries. Both Starship and Kiwi, a company founded in Berkeley in 2017, have launched pilot robotic delivery services to students on college campuses around the country. Marble, another San Francisco company founded in 2015, makes food deliveries for Eat24 in the Potrero and Mission Neighborhoods. Postmates has also been developing a robot, Serve, with a mission to “respect cities, meet customer demands, and help local businesses sell even more.”
In December 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance 244-17, amending Public Works Code Section 794. Originally, the ordinance was drafted as an outright ban on robotic delivery vehicles, also known as Automated Delivery Devices (“ADD”). The prohibition failed to secure the required number of votes, so it was replaced by a permitting process that allows testing of up to 9 ADD’s total at any one time, with no single company having more than 3 on the road. Testing has been limited to certain neighborhoods in zoning districts designated for Production, Design and Repair (“PDR”) and ADDs are restricted to traveling no more than 3 miles per hour with human accompaniment at all times.
As to your question: what does the law say about responsibility for injuries caused by ADDs? California law provides that an injured bystander like your mother may bring suit for her injuries under negligence or strict products liability claims. Strict products liability would be brought against the designer and manufacturer of the robot, as well as the permit holder, alleging the robots are defective and dangerous due to their design and/or manufacturing process. For instance, an injured party could argue that, given that ADDs are below waist-height (for the most part), a reasonable person would not expect such a novel and diminutive vehicle on the sidewalk or crossing the road, any design lacking a conspicuous marking such as a flag or some other item would cause unlawful danger to pedestrians and motorists.
An injured party could also sue under negligence law to hold an ADD’s permit holder accountable for making sure the robot functions in a reasonably safe manner. Therefore, the permit holder would be liable for any harms caused by the robot if its actions do not meet this “reasonably safe” standard. There is no developed case law so far directly involving ADDS, so the most analogous decisions would be those evaluating the behavior of pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc. One thing yet to be worked out, is whether the permit holder would have to provide the data collected by the robots’ myriad sensors to a party claiming injury due to the alleged negligent operation of the ADD.
While the exact nature of injuries, claims and lawsuits from this new technology is yet to be determined, odds are, unfortunately, that someone will be hurt or killed. I wrote in 2012 about the inevitability of Uber’s systems and drivers causing injury or death, a prediction that manifested tragically with the death of 7 year old Sophia Liu whose family I represented in the first wrongful death lawsuit in Uber’s history. Sophia’s family and I went to Sacramento and helped pass a bill that requires Uber to carry a million dollars in insurance. I hope that, in this case, the companies are more deliberate and resolve issues concerning liability and insurance before the inevitable moment when someone is hurt or killed.
This week’s question comes from John T. in Portola Valley, who asks:
Q: “I was using an electric scooter when the brakes failed and I ran into a car, breaking my wrist. I didn’t do anything wrong, but now I have a lot of medical bills and I will miss at least three weeks of work (I work with my hands). I reached out to the company and they said they would “look into it,” but I have not heard anything back from them. I don’t have a lot of money so this is going to wipe out the meager savings I have. What are my rights?”
A: John, I am sorry to hear of your crash. Unfortunately, you are part of a growing number of people being hurt by these new scooters, whether while driving over storm grates and uneven roads, colliding with cars that pull out in front of them or make unsafe lane changes, or by being rear-ended. E-scooters are causing a flood of injuries to the emergency rooms throughout the state.
Your case, in which the scooter’s brakes failed, presents an issue of product liability law. Like other jurisdictions, California law provides a means of seeking accountability for injuries caused by defective products by bringing suit against product designers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and, in this case, providers of products for general use and consumption.
A claim for product liability may arise where there is a flaw in a product’s design, a manufacturing defect, a failure to properly inspect or maintain a product, or a failure to warn of dangerous and foreseeable risks, even when caused by foreseeable misuse. In order to succeed in such a claim, the product must be in the same or similar condition as when it left the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer. If the product has been modified in a manner that may have contributed to the injury, any party “upstream” from the point when it was modified may be insulated from liability.
Since products are often designed, manufactured, distributed, and retailed by different entities, and there is a risk that any one or more of them may not be properly insured or financially stable enough to pay for a valid claim, California follows the “chain of distribution” method of financial accountability. Depending on the type of defect (design vs. manufacturing/inspection), anyone “downstream” in the chain of distribution, from the designer to the retailer, or in this case rental company, may be held financially responsible for your injuries.
California law follows what is known as the “consumer expectations test” in determining whether a product is defective. If a product fails to operate safely when used in such a manner as a consumer could reasonably expect that it should, then the design may, depending on the facts, prove to be defective. If the product leaves a factory with a safety defect deviating from the intended design and manufacturing process (in your case, if the brake cable was fastened incorrectly), then the producer may be held liable for a manufacturing defect claim. The manufacturer may also be held liable for a failure to conduct a reasonable inspection to assure that the scooter was safe and fit for its intended use.
If, on the other hand, the product, as designed and manufactured, was safe at its point of initial sale, but Bird, Skip, Scoot, Lime or another rental company failed to properly inspect and maintain the product while it was in the field, then that company may be held responsible under a negligent maintenance theory of liability. These scooters are in heavy use/rotation and are often abused. The company’s inspection and maintenance program should be carefully examined to ascertain whether their methods and practices are adequate to identify and remedy dangerous defects.
One hurdle that you may face in making a successful claim, depending on the scooter company you rent through, is that you may have signed a waiver and/or assumption of risk clause when you clicked “accept” and accepted the terms and conditions of use. Some companies have put in a complete waiver in their terms and conditions which they will claim bars any legal action against them. Others have placed a $100 limit on their accountability. Some even go so far as to include a waiver of any claims against the manufacturers. These broad waivers have yet to be challenged at the appellate courts, so it is unclear if they will be upheld. Because of the unfairness associated with these waivers, I have proposed legislation, together with the premier consumer protection association in California, The Consumer Attorneys of California, to eliminate these anti-consumer waivers.
John, I suggest that you speak with a good, well respected, trial lawyer about this case and your facts. These companies generally don’t negotiate.
Today’s question comes from Robert W. in Pinole who asks “I bought a [name of brand deleted] bike recently and when I was using it the front fork cracked, broke, and sent me over the handlebars where I landed on my head and shoulder. Thank God I was wearing a helmet. My head is OK, but I broke my shoulder. My research shows that the bike frame was probably made in China. I bought the bike at a local store, not a chain, they said they would refund me my money or give me a replacement frame. When I asked if they would pay my medical bills they told me that they are not responsible, and I need to go after the manufacturer in China. How do I do that?”
Lisa from Petaluma asks, “I see so many young people vaping today. Is vaping safe? Why do e-cigarettes explode? If someone is burned, what are their legal rights?”
Lisa, the use of e-cigarettes, e-pens, e-pipes, e-hookah, and e-cigars is seen by many as a “safer” way to ingest nicotine than smoking. Sales of these devices are skyrocketing and expected to exceed $10 billion by 2018. While users do not inhale cigarette smoke, which is a witches’ brew of toxin and carcinogens, nicotine itself is not safe. Moreover, multiple studies have shown the vapor from e-cigarettes contains harmful chemicals.
Ikea announced a voluntary recall of 29 million chests and drawers, after three children died in the past two years because of dresser tip-over accidents. The recall affects MALM dressers and chests of drawers with three or more drawers, as well as a number of other Ikea models.