Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases

Practice Areas


Blog

Personal Injury

view all

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

view all

Workers' Compensation

view all

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

view all

General

view all

Legal News

Judge campaign candidates speak at dinner in Towanda

Judge Beirne unopposed in local race

Attorney General Tom Corbett to visit Bradford County

Beirne will run for full term as judge

Bias in Peer Review

Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers

Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance

Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding

Armenia bans ATVs

Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge

View All

Legal Library

Personal Injury

More Info

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

More Info

Workers' Compensation

More Info

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

More Info

Newsletters

More Info

General

More Info

Blog Category:

Personal Injury

    11/23/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Ten Worst Toys

    American Association of Justice members Edward and James Swartz released their “Ten Worst Toys List” (http://www.justice.org/WATCH_-_10_Worst_TOYS_-_NOVEMBER_2008.pdf ) and we added our own quick analysis and found a large majority of products—85 percent— recalled so far this year by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) were produced in foreign countries and 57 percent were manufactured in China.  Of the 354 products recalled by the CPSC, 302 were produced in foreign countries and 201 were produced in China according to CPSC’s posted recall notices.

    Recalled products Jan 1, 2008-Nov. 13, 2008

    Total Recalled products –354

    From the United States—52 or 15%

    From China – 201 or 57%

    From foreign countries –302 or 85%

    This is significant because foreign manufacturers can set their prices lower because they are not subject to the equal prospect of restitution as U.S. manufacturers face if a consumer is injured by their product.  Also, foreign manufacturers often face huge discrepancies in product liability insurance rates.  Without the prospect of being held accountable through the U.S. civil justice system, a foreign producer has little incentive to maximize product quality and safety.   We have more information on this issue with a release we put out on a paper on the topic, see http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/4771.htm .


10/23/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Hedge clipper manufacturer not liable for landscaper's loss of fingers, says jury

A jury in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that a hedge clipper was not defectively designed, after a landscaper using the equipment accidentally amputated two of his fingers.

Fernando Sanchez, an employee of a landscaping company, was trimming bushes in 2003 when he lost control of an HC-2000 hedge clipper, manufactured by Echo Inc., and was injured when the clipper's blades came in contact with his hand.

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the clipper should have turned off automatically as soon as Sanchez dropped it. Defense counsel alleged that Sanchez was contributorily negligent, since he was walking backwards directly before the accident.

The jury found no defective design, and ruled that both parties had been negligent, awarding Sanchez zero damages.


To order the full report on Sanchez v. Echo Inc., go to VerdictSearch.com.


10/14/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Forty-one of the fifty-one rules proposed by NHTSA and FDA Contain Federal Pre-Emption Language

Due to an unfriendly Congress, the Bush administration is finding a quieter way to make it difficult for consumers to sue businesses over faulty products. It is rewriting the bureaucratic rulebook. Since 2005, lawsuit limits have been included in fifty-one rules proposed or adopted by agency bureaucrats. Forty-one of the fifty-one rules proposed by agency bureaucrats came from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) alone. Bureaucratic agencies' use of its rule-making power is the final act in the administration's drive to protect companies from lawsuits. NHTSA and the FDA, however, deny any designated rules to undercut lawsuits.


Since he was the governor of Texas, President Bush has campaigned for lawsuit reform. As president, however, he has made little progress on the issue because Democrats have blocked him every time he tries to tackle the issue directly. Limits on lawsuits have been proposed for drug labeling and packaging, along with rules ranging from mattress flammability standards to dietary sweeteners and roof-crush requirements in car rollovers. Clearly, this kind of limitation is more troubling and far more effective than the standards that they apply to. If pre-empted, a particular standard no longer is valuable to the consumer as a rule of law.

The chief executive office of the American Association for Justice says agencies are engaging in activities that are allowing negligent companies off the hook and knowingly putting American consumers at risk. According to Joan Claybrook, former head of the NHTSA, companies are looking for total immunity and the regulators in the Bush Administration are helping them achieve that. Later this year, the Supreme Court will determine whether or not federal preemption relates to lawsuits and prescription drug labeling because defendant drugmakers contend they should not be involved in lawsuits since the FDA approved the product and warning label on the drug

The concept of federal preemption, rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, is underlying this bureaucratic version of lawsuit reform. Federal preemption refers to situations in which federal regulation and law trumps state law. The issue at hand is whether or not companies can use the broad preemption language in regulatory preambles to get the case thrown out. An expansive interpretation of the preemption doctrine leaves little room for consumers to sue, and that is what has been taking place recently.

Here is a fact paper offered by the Pennsylvania Association for Justice on Federal Preemption in relation to defective products.


10/2/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Candy with chemical in Chinese milk found in Conn.

An industrial chemical blamed for sickening thousands of infants in China was found in candy in four Connecticut stores this week, a state official said Wednesday.  Days after contaminated White Rabbit Creamy Candy was found in California, Connecticut Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell Jr. said tests found melamine in bags of the candy sold at two New Haven stores, a West Hartford market and an East Haven store.

"We're concerned, obviously, there may have been bags sold of these before we got to them," Farrell said.  Anyone who has the candy should destroy it, Farrell said.

The contamination has been blamed for the deaths of four children and kidney ailments among 54,000 others. More than 13,000 children have been hospitalized and 27 people arrested in connection with the tainting.

Melamine, which is high in nitrogen, is used to make plastics and fertilizers and experts say some amount of the chemical may be transferred from the environment during food processing. But in China's case, suppliers trying to boost output are believed to have diluted their milk, adding melamine because its nitrogen content can fool tests aimed at verifying protein content.

Click here to see the full story from Yahoo News.
9/30/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Can Seller of Defective Used Equipment be Strictly Liable in New York?

Mario Miquel Jaramillo was injured at work when his right hand was caught between two rollers on a 1964 Flexo Folder Gluer (“FFG”) which his employer, Glenwood Universal Packaging, purchased as used equipment from Weyerhaeuser Company in 1986. The evidence demonstrated that Weyerhaeusar sold an average of 3 used FFG’s per year, owned patents related to technology used in FFG’s, and had a working relationship with FFG manufacturers.

Jaramillo filed a complaint in New York state court against Weyerhaeuser alleging strict product liability. The case was removed to federal district court (S.D.N.Y.) and Weyerhaeusar was granted summary judgment as a casual seller of FFG’s under New York law and, therefore, could not be held strictly liable.

Casual sellers and regular sellers are distinguished in New York case law in strict product liability actions. The casual seller is only liable if it fails to warn the consumer of known defects that are not obvious or easily recognizable. The appellate court also noted that whether strict liability applies to sales of used goods, as in the present matter, is an open question under New York law.

After an examination of similar case law, the Second Circuit determined that it was necessary to have a resolution of the question of whether a seller of used industrial equipment can be deemed a “regular” seller in order to consider the propriety of summary judgment. To answer that question, it was certified to the New York Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit retained jurisdiction pending the outcome of the certification.

To see the full article from JudicialView.com, click here.
8/12/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

More news on the Whole Foods beef recall

From The New York Times:

Whole Foods Market
said Monday it would tighten oversight of its suppliers to keep substandard products out of stores, after recalling ground beef that apparently sickened customers in two states.

Scrambling to contain the fallout from a recall that threatens the chain’s reputation for quality, Whole Foods acknowledged that it had failed to catch an important change made by one of its suppliers of ground beef, Coleman Natural Beef.

After coming under new ownership, Coleman Natural began using a slaughterhouse in Omaha that had received multiple citations and had fought a long-running battle with the Agriculture Department. The government has said the plant was the source of ground beef that has sickened scores of people around the country.

Most of the beef was sold at grocers other than Whole Foods and recalled this summer. An additional 1.2 million pounds were recalled on Friday by the processor after illnesses in several states were tentatively linked to ground beef sold at Whole Foods and other stores.

At least four regional grocery chains — Fred Meyer, King Soopers and City Market, all owned by the Kroger Company, and Dorothy Lane — have also recalled suspect beef packages in recent days.


Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

    11/4/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Investigating Yamaha Rhino


    In a front-page article, the
    Wall Street Journal (11/4, A1, Trottman, Conkey) reports that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is investigating the Yamaha Rhino off-road vehicle "following reports of some 30 deaths," and "Yamaha faces more than 200 lawsuits in state and federal courts, many alleging the Rhino's design is unsafe."

    While "Yamaha has settled some," it "recently beefed up its defense and says it may start to fight rather than settle." According to Yamaha, "plaintiffs' lawyers 'have seized on safety and product enhancements that Yamaha has made to the Rhino to allege baseless claims about the stability of the vehicles.'" The company added that "many injury claims...stem from improper operation, modifications such as removing the protective 'roll cage,' or failure to use a helmet and seat belt." Meanwhile, "some plaintiffs' lawyers allege that Yamaha failed to report Rhino problems to the CPSC as early as it should have."

7/16/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

When does ATV riding become illegal?

I often blog about AVT (All Terrain Vehicle) accidents and law suits; therefore, I thought this editorial from The Daily Review is very good.

See it here.


Workers' Compensation

    7/18/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (1)

    Conveyor's designer pays $1.4M to man whose arm was snared

    A conveyor system's designer agreed to pay $1.4 million to a man who sustained severe injuries of an arm that became caught in the system's moving belt.  The case was filed in New York. 
    Steven Raynor sued New Berlin, Wis.-based HK Systems Inc., alleging that the company negligently failed to shield a 5-inch-wide opening that allowed access to the underside of its conveyor system's belt. While reaching beneath the conveyor, Raynor's left arm entered that opening and became snared by the belt.
    Some 10 minutes elapsed before a co-worker arrived and freed Raynor's arm, which was broken in two places. The defense argued that Raynor's employer had removed a designer-installed shield that protected the opening, but it ultimately agreed to a pretrial settlement.
    To see the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com.

General

8/7/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

New Consumer Safety Legislation

Your world is about to become significantly safer. Last week, Congress passed the strongest consumer protection legislation in decades. This is good news for all of us, especially our children.

The new law nearly doubles CPSC funding by the year 2014. The agency will be able to build a new testing lab and add more than 100 staff positions. CPSC will soon have full-time inspectors at the major ports of entry looking for dangerous products before they can enter the country.

It will also have the power to impose much larger civil penalties on companies that break the rules. The maximum fine goes from $1.8 to $15 million.

Do you think something like this would have been passed if Republicans controlled Congress?  See...your vote really DOES matter.

To see the full article, go here.