Articles Posted in Product Liability

Many popular baby product brands who sell infant recliners are receiving intense scrutiny after several babies have died while using these products. These products were designed with incorrect and unsafe beliefs about infant sleep, and as a result, many families have suffered traumatic losses. Under New Hampshire products liability laws, families whose babies have died using a baby infant sleeper may be entitled to monetary compensation for their damages.

Although, many of these companies boasted that these products were a useful remedy for infants who had sleeping difficulties because of acid reflux, experts contend that there is no scientific evidence that an incline is helpful for this condition. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advises parents to abide by safe sleep guidelines. These guidelines include always placing infants on their backs on a flat, firm surface without any objects in the area. They report that deviating from these standards can result in suffocation and subsequent brain injury or death. Despite the AAP’s baby sleep guidelines, Fisher-Price continued to market its products as a “sleeper.”

In April 2019, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a consumer warning advising parents not to use their highly-reviewed Rock n’ Play infant sleeper. The CPSC, in conjunction with the AAP, urged the company to issue a recall following several reports that babies died while sleeping unrestrained in the recliner. Following intense pressure and negative exposure, the company voluntarily issued a recall, allowing customers to receive a voucher or refund for their product.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New Hampshire personal injury case giving the court the opportunity to discuss product liability law as it pertained to the plaintiff’s claim that he contracted salmonella at the defendant restaurant. Ultimately, the court affirmed the jury’s $750,000 verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff contracted a case of salmonella shortly after consuming a hamburger while dining at the defendant restaurant. The plaintiff filed a New Hampshire personal injury case against the restaurant, claiming that it was liable for his injuries under the theory of strict product liability.

In its defense, the restaurant made several arguments, mostly focused on attacking the plaintiff’s theory of causation. For example, the restaurant pointed out that another person in the plaintiff’s party also ate a hamburger and that the plaintiff owned a pet lizard which could have been the source of the salmonella. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff ate other meals in between the meal at the defendant’s restaurant, and when he contracted salmonella.

Contact Information