Consumer Reports did its usual research including culling through lots of fire data compiled by the federal government, and has found that it’s a 50-50% chance that the defect in the product starts the fire.  Not the human.

Scary stuff here: appliances that turn themselves on.  Fires popping up from flaws in dishwashers. You can read all the details about the study online in the March 2012 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

8 Things You Can Do To Protect Against Appliance Fires

Meanwhile, Consumer Reports has issued a press release to warn all of us about the real danger of appliance fires and to give 8 tips for protecting against an appliance fire:

1. Register new appliances. The large number of recalls is a sobering reminder of how important it is for consumers to register their products with manufacturers in order to be promptly notified in the event of a recall. Consumers concerned about their privacy or junk mail need only provide manufacturers with their name, contact information and the appliance’s model number.
2. Check for recalls. Consumers can sign up for alerts at www.recalls.gov. Those who move into a home with existing appliances should record their make and model and check company websites for any recalls or review customers’ experiences with those products at www.SaferProducts.gov.
3. Install fire-prevention equipment. Each level of a home and every bedroom should have a working smoke alarm. Consumer Reports recommends smoke alarms have both photoelectric and ionization sensors to provide the fastest response to any type of fire. Also, keep one full-floor fire extinguisher (rated 2-A:10-B:C or greater) on every level, plus a smaller supplemental unit in the kitchen.
4. Inspect power cords. Check for frayed power cords and never route electric cords (including extension cords) under carpeting, where they can overheat or be damaged by furniture.
5. Check home wiring. The electrical wiring in older homes cannot always handle the demands of modern appliances. Systems should be inspected by a qualified electrician. An upgrade to wiring may cost several hundred dollars, but is likely worth the added expense.
6. Practice kitchen safety. Unattended cooking is a common fire-starter, whether using a range or microwave oven. If small children are home, maintain a kids-free-zone of at least 3 feet and use back burners when possible. Consumers should unplug their small appliances, including toasters and coffeemakers, when not in use and or when planning to be away for long periods.
7. Clear range hoods. Grease buildup in range hoods is another fire hazard, so be sure to clean the vents regularly.
8. Keep dryer vents clear. Clean the lint screen in the dryer regularly to avoid buildup, which has been listed as a factor in many fires. Use rigid metal dryer ducts instead of flexible ducts made of foil or plastic, which can sag and let lint build. Check ducts regularly and remove any lint buildup.

Once again, another example of how products that are sold everyday today in the United States are not safe.  While federal agencies and private watchdog groups can do much to fight against people being hurt or killed by dangerous products, the truth remains that longstanding products liability laws on the books in Indiana, Illinois, and other states remains one of the strongest weapons against this type of tragedy.  Sad but true that for some manufacturers and distributors and sellers of products today, it is only when they are faced with harm to their bottom line that they will do the right thing.

Be careful out there.

Why?  These top professionals have filed a lawsuit because they have found out that the FDA was spying on these doctors’ and scientists’ personal email accounts (Gmail).

Seems that the FDA was interested in reading the personal emails of these Six FDA Employees because these six individuals had had the courage to tell members of Congress that they were concerned because the FDA was going ahead and approving products which these six FDA employees thought were NOT SAFE.

Media investigations have occurred and now, the news stories include the release of federal government documents confirming that the personal emails were monitored, and for a long time, too.  Apparently, according to a Washington Post expose, the FDA employees’ personal email accounts were being spied upon for over two years.

Here, though, the big news isn’t a media scoop.  Here, these six courageous individuals haven’t just voiced concerns to Congress — now, they’ve gone and filed a civil lawsuit in federal court based upon the sneaky behavior of the FDA.   They are claiming damages to their careers because of what’s happened, among other things.

It’s going to be more of a right of privacy case more than a fight over whether or not those products are indeed unsafe.  The safety of the products are not the focus of this litigation (but should be a very, very big lesson to us all).

Was the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution violated when the FDA instituted surveillance on its own employees?  (The FDA, of course, will argue no; that by using the work computers, these folk couldn’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy.)

Bottom line, products liability laws exist in Indiana and Illinois and every other state in the union because all too often, Americans are hurt or killed by products (food  and drugs among them) that they have legitimately purchased at a store with the expectation that the product is safe to use.   Americans cannot depend upon manufacturers, distributors, sellers, etc. to protect them from dangerous products.   Unsafe products are put into the marketplace all the time.

Now, the Federal and Drug Administration’s dependability and integrity has been called into question by this agency spying upon employees who were whistleblowing about product safety to members of Congress.

If you or a loved one has been hurt or injured or even suffered a wrongful death because of food or drugs or medication — then your most solid and dependable avenue of justice remains with the personal injury system of  justice and filing a products liability lawsuit under state law.

Slowly but surely, state legislatures are starting to take heed of these research results (and the outcry from parents whose kids have been hurt while playing a sport) and now, Indiana and Illinois have both recently passed state concussion laws.

According to SafeKids.Org, Indiana and Illinois joined 31 other states in passing legislation designed to protect children playing school sports from suffering concussions and permanent brain injuries.

Illinois Concussion Law (Public Act 097-0204)

Under the Illinois Concussion Law, each school board must adopt a concussion policy that conforms to the established guidelines of the Illinois High School Association.

Both the student athlete and the student’s parent must sign a written acknowledgement of the school’s concussion policy.

Before a student athlete can play a sport again after being removed from play because of concussion or suspected concussion, the student has to be checked by a health care provider and that provider must give the student a written clearance to participate in the sporting activity.

Indiana Concussion Law (Indiana Code 20-34-7)

The Indiana Concussion Law tasks the State Department of Education with the dissemination of guidelines, information sheets, and forms detailing the nature and risk of concussions and head injuries to schools which are to distribute the Department’s work to school coaches, student athletes and parents of student athletes.

In Indiana, all high school student athletes and their parents must acknowledge by their signature that they have received the Department of Education’s brain injury and concussion information on a form collected by the student athlete’s coach each year before the student can start his or her first practice.

If there is a suspicion that a student athlete has sustained a head injury or concussion, the student must be removed from play at that time (the time of the suspected injury).  He or she cannot return to the sport until the student has been evaluated by a licensed health care provider trained in head injuries and that health care provider has given him or her a written clearance form to return to play.

We’ve posted about aspects of these new rules before along with the trucking industry’s response to the agency’s proposals; however, it’s important to know the extent of what these new laws are – especially when trucking companies are already voicing their concerns that these new regulations will burden those trying to logistically plan trucking routes.

Summary of the New FMCSA Truck Driver Rules Effective February 2012

Here is a summary of the new February 2012 rules that govern truck drivers driving commercial trucks (big rigs; semis; tractor trailers; etc.) as passed by FMCSA (others will become law later in the year):

1.  Restarts. Two rules work together to impose a new regulation involving 34-hour restarts.

• 34 hour restarts can be used once a week
• must have 1 AM to 5 AM home terminal time

2.  Rest Breaks. Now, a new rule requires that trucks cannot drive any longer than 8 hours without taking a 30 minute rest break.

3.  On-Duty Time.  If the truck driver is resting in a parked truck, then he or she can count this as rest time; it is no longer considered on-duty time even though they technically may be setting behind the wheel. It can extend the weekly limits but it cannot extend the 14 consecutive hour daily limit. There is no limit on how long the trucker can rest in a parked truck.

4.  In Attendance Time. This can be tallied as break time if the truck driver is not doing any other work tasks at the time.

5.  Daily HOS Violations. FMCSA considers that 3 hours of HOS violations as ‘egregious’ (i.e., going over the 11 hour per day limit by 3 or more hours) which will be reflected in higher fines, to the tune of $2,750 for the driver and $11,000 for the carrier.

Hours of Service regulations are designed to protect the truck driver and those with whom he shares the road from the ramifications of driving too far and too long without a break behind the wheel of a big commercial vehicle.  The tragedies of big rig semi trucks crashing with other vehicles on the road (which usually weigh so much less than that tractor trailer truck) are often horrific as fatalities are usually involved.

These new regulations are designed to save lives.  And they will.  If truck drivers and carriers follow them.

Local news reporters (13 Investigates) first discovered that the nursing home had never called 911, which would have brought nearby paramedics to the scene; instead Wildwood Healthcare called the private ambulance company with which it had a contract.  We can assume it was cheaper for Wildwood to call the contract service than to call the 911 service.   You can read the March 2011 expose online here.

Indiana State Senator Patricia Miller Pushes Senate Bill 0224 as New Indiana Law for Nursing Homes

Responding to the tragic story of Barbara Parcel, Indiana State Senator Patricia Miller authored and presented a bill which should become law in the State of Indiana.  You can read the proposed law as she wrote it here.

If passed, this law will require nursing homes to forego their bottom line and to call to get the fastest emergency medical services team in place.  Which is good news for everyone who either lives in an assisted facility or who has a loved one residing in a nursing home.

You can track the bill as it moves through the Indiana Legislature here.

Indiana Courts Are Already At the Ready to Right Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect

Nursing homes have a legal duty to care for those that reside at their facilities.  If they fail to meet that duty, just as a doctor fails in his care of a patient or a hospital commits an error in care, they can be found legally responsible for the wrongful death of their resident.

These laws are already on the books for Indiana victims and their families.  They are made the basis of a personal injury lawsuit filed against the nursing home and anyone else that has contributed to the harm.

The boy was hurt by the assault which took place behind a local elementary school.

According to news reports, this beating was done in response to an earlier attack, where 20 people assaulted two teens.  On Sunday afternoon, the 17 year old boy is shown on the video (that lasts over 3 minutes) being overtaken and having his wallet and shoes taken from him.  He is hit, kicked, and drug along the ground in the video.   He is choked.  Some take big chunks of ice and use them as weapons.

At last, the boy is still, lying there.  Helpless.  Hurt.  All while the video camera captures everything for the eventual YouTube upload. Eventually, the victim rises and runs away.

Interestingly, the very fact that the evildoers put the video online may prove to be their undoing.  As the video went viral, media reports are that over 500 comments were left and calls made to the local law enforcement, some going so far as to name names of those shown beating the boy on the screen.  Virtual finger pointing.  The web version of an eyewitness testifying?

Today, this event is making the national news.  The good thing is that the victim has been treated and released from a local hospital.  And it’s being reported that the gang members will be charged as this being a “strong arm robbery.”

This Is A Growing National Problem – Videotaped Assaults Are Trendy.

Similar videos exist for other attacks upon kids in this country.  Consider the videotaped beating on a Mississippi school bus.  Or the similar group of teens assault upon a 13 year old in Philidelphia. There are more; you just have to surf the web for them.

Assaults Upon Children in this Country Must Stop

Arrests will be made, no doubt, in this Chicago case.  However, in this case as well as countless other beatings of children in this country, there is more than can be done to find justice for the victim and to put an end to this kind of violence: personal injury lawsuits.

In assaults on children, private civil lawsuits can work to force better protections for kids who are in danger of being hurt and assaulted like the teen shown in this viral video.   How the causes of action are framed would depend upon the situation; however, one clear example would be municipal liability causes of action.  Here, violent assaults on public school or city  property can be the basis of a liability suit if there were shown to be inadequate security or neglectful property maintenance that was a cause of the harm.  City governments, school districts, owners of premises, etc. may be held legally accountable for not doing more to protect kids from this sort of thing.

These child beating law suits are being filed by parents all over the country, and it perhaps through these civil suits that school bullying will be become the subject of widespread assault by those with the power to stop these horrible injuries on children.

1.  Injuries or Deaths in Airplane Crashes. It is against the law in Illinois for anyone to shine a laser light into the cockpit of an airplane that is in the process of taking off or landing. And, yes, apparently this had been happening quite a bit in the Chicago O’Hare area. (House Bill 167)

2. Injuries or Deaths in School and Playground Injuries.  Now, Illinois school officials can suspend, or even permanently expel, any public school student who threatens another student or an employee of the school district, via the Web in online bullying. (House Bill 3281)

3.  Injuries or Deaths in Auto Accidents. Now, adults riding in the back seat of a car must buckle up just like those in the front seat, or face being fined and ticketed. (House Bill 219)

4.  Injuries or Deaths in Big Rig Crashes. Now, semi trucks can drive along Illinois roadways just like any small sedan at the exact same speed, not just in certain sections of trucking routes (Senate Bill 1913)

Run That Red Light in Illinois.  It’s Legal Now.

Effective January 2012, in Illinois a new law has been passed that allows those riding on motorcycles and bicycles to run a red light, but there’s a hitch.  They do have to wait a ‘reasonable’ amount of time.  (Police are suggesting that “reasonable” means two minutes.)

The case is Bell v. Hutsell.  You can read it online here.

In the case itself a young man (18 years old) named Daniel Bell went over to his friend’s house for a party.  Daniel drank at the party and then Daniel left the party in a car and was tragically killed in a car crash.

Daniel Bell’s mother sued, based on that automobile accident, under the Illinois wrongful death statutes, and that lawsuit made its way up from the trial court through the lower leel appellate court to the highest court in the state, the Illinois Supreme Court.

There, the question boiled down to whether or not under Illinois law, Janet Bell as the grieving mother of Daniel Bell could be awarded damages from the parents of Daniel’s friend who hosted the party at their house where Daniel went and drank the alcoholic beverages that ultimately resulted in his death.

After all, the parents knew there were minors at the party; they knew that alcohol was present; and they knew that the minors were drinking it.  The parents where the house party was taking place didn’t do anything to stop the underage drinking.

Legally, the question became whether or not the parents who had the party in their home where minors were drinking could be held liable for a minor guest’s death under the theory of social host liability.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the parents of Daniel Bell’s friend did not have a legal duty to prevent underage drinking on their property under Illinois law.  This meant that the Bell’s wrongful death action lost one of it’s elements — duty under the law — and now, they’ve lost their son and their wrongful death lawsuit has been dismissed.

Remember this, when your teenagers leave to go to a party.  Those parents aren’t going to be responsible under Illinois Law to supervise any underage drinking there.

Problem is: profit happy toy companies still sell toys that can serious injure children all for the sake of making a buck.  And, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times reports, it’s usually only after innocent little ones have been hurt that we hear about another dangerous or deadly toy that has been manufactured, distributed, and sold in this country. To read the entire Los Angeles Times article, check out “Parents, you are top regulator when it comes to toy safety.”

The news story has it partly right.  Parents are the first line of defense when there is a dangerous toy.  However, toy safety must be a concern at any day care, elementary school, or child-friendly pizza joint where toys and kids coexist.

If your child is injured by a toy, then not only are the toy makers responsible, but the seller as well as the place where the child came into contact with that toy may be legally responsible as well (including schools, restaurants, doctors’ offices, playgrounds, etc.).

The Child Safety Protection Act was passed in 2005 to help protect kids from harm.  You can read its online fact sheet here.  This is federal law that holds manufacturers, etc. responsible for toy safety.  Product liabilty laws in both Indiana and Illinois also exist to protect kids who have been hurt by a toy.

26th Annual Trouble in Toyland Study Released for 2011

Every year for many years now, a non-profit organization — USPIRG — has released its annual study of dangerous toys and toy safety.  This year, “Trouble in Toyland” reported that there are still dangers present in the American marketplace for children and their toys.  Included in their concerns:

Lead Continues to be a Hazard in Toys
Exposure to lead can affect almost every organ and system in the human body, especially the central nervous system. Lead is especially harmful to the brains of young children and has no business in children’s products. This year our investigators found 2 toys whose lead levels exceeded the current 300ppm standard set by the CPSIA and one additional toy that exceeded its prospective 100ppm standard; we found 4 additional toys that exceeded the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that lead levels in toys should not exceed 40ppm.

Phthalates in Toys
Numerous studies have documented the potential negative health effects of exposure to phthalates in the womb or in child development. U.S. EPA studies show the cumulative impact of different phthalates leads to an exponential increase in harms including premature delivery and reproductive defects. The CPSIA permanently banned toys containing three phthalates and set temporary limits on three others, while tests continue. No toy or childcare article can contain more than 1000ppm of each of the six phthalates.

This year, we found two toys that laboratory testing showed to contain 42,000 ppm and 77,000 ppm levels of phthalates. These products exceed limits allowed by the CPSIA by 42 and 77 times, respectively.

Choking Hazards
Choking on small toy parts, on small balls, on marbles and balloons continues to be the major cause of toy-related deaths and injuries. Between 1990 and 2010, over 200 children died from a choking incident.

This year we found several toys that violated CPSC’s small parts for toys standard intended for children less than 3 years old. We also found “near small part” toys that – while not in violation of current regulations — support our call for the small parts test to be made less permissive. Finally, we found toys intended for older children that failed to provide choking hazards warnings required for small parts or small balls.

Noisy Toys
Research has shown a third of Americans with hearing loss can attribute it in part to noise. The third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed one in five U.S. children will have some degree of hearing loss by the time they reach age 12; this may be in part due to many children using toys and other children’s products that emit loud sounds such as music players. The National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders advises that prolonged exposure to noise above 85 decibels will cause gradual hearing loss in any age range. We found 1 toy on store shelves that exceeded the recommended continuous exposure to 85-decibel limit and 2 close-to-the-ear toys that exceeded the 65 decibel limit when measured with a digital sound level meter.