Lemon Laws: Chrysler Car Owners Still Covered After Company's Bankruptcy

Chrysler car owners will still enjoy legal protections from serious vehicle defects - rights that are guaranteed under their states' "lemon laws" - even after the car giant re-emerges from bankruptcy under new ownership. That's the not-so-sour result of an agreement reached this week between the new Chrysler LLC and state attorneys general.

Chrysler vehicle owners and consumer rights groups had questioned whether the new owners of Chrysler would "honor Lemon Law rights for vehicles sold or leased by Chrysler prior to the sale of the company," according to a News Release from Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, but after negotiations with a number of state attorneys general, the new group (led by Fiat Group SpA) "agreed to honor the Lemon Law rights consumers had under Chrysler before the buyout."

What are Lemon Laws? In every state, "lemon laws" give car owners legal rights to free repairs if their new (and newer) vehicles have serious defects -- like mechanical problems -- that are typically covered under a new car warranty. Depending on the severity of the car's problems and the number of repair attempts made, car owners may be legally entitled to a new replacement vehicle under their state's lemon laws. Learn more: State-by-State Lemon Law Information.

Lemon law rights of Chrysler owners are just one of the legal issues raised by the car company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in April, and its planned re-emergence under new ownership. Last month FindLaw's Injured blog reported on the shaky status of some personal injury lawsuits filed by Chrysler owners. 

• News Release on Chrysler Owners' Lemon Law Rights (Florida Attorney General)
• AP: Chrysler Drivers Still Covered by State Lemon Laws
• Your Rights If Your Car is a Lemon (FindLaw)
• State-by-State Lemon Law Information (FindLaw)
• Products Liability FAQ (provided by Law Offices of Jeffrey I. Amtman)
• Chrysler Bankruptcy: What Happens to Car Owners' Lawsuits (FindLaw's Injured)
• Bankruptcy FAQ (provided by Greenway Law LLC)

FDA Plans Greater Public Transparency

Food and Drug Safety Goes See-Through?

This week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the formation of a new task force that will examine the agency's policies and practices when it comes to making information public. The task force will make recommendations on how the FDA can improve the transparency of its operations and decision-making processes.

What sorts of changes can consumers expect through the FDA's new looking glass? Here's a look at some highlights of the FDA Transparency Task Force's plan:

• Identify what agency information and actions should be opened up to the public, and what needs to remain confidential.
• Explore ways the agency can better explain its operations to the public, including specific enforcement actions and and product approvals.
• Eliminate the barriers (internal and external) to providing useful and understandable FDA decision-making information to the public.
• Improve current FDA policies to better provide timely information to the public, including the identification of new tools and technological avenues that can be utilized to provide updates on FDA actions, both pending and in progress.
• Recommend legislative or regulatory actions that can improve the FDA’s ability to provide information to the public.

On the heels of the announcement of the new FDA Transparency Task Force, the FDA also scheduled a June 24 public meeting to hear recommendations on how the agency can better provide "useful and understandable information on its activities and decisions," according to the FDA News Release.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the new task force will seek to combat the FDA's reputation as a "black box that makes important decisions without explaining them," as FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg put it." Topics likely to be on the table include clinical-trial data and details on decisions about recalls and drug approvals," according to the WSJ. 

• News Release: FDA Forms Transparency Task Force (FDA.gov)
• FDA Transparency Task Force (FDA.gov)
• Wall Street Journal Health Blog: FDA Tries to Decide What Should, Shouldn't Be Kept Secret
• N.Y. Times Editorial: FDA's Secret Files
• Legal Questions and Answers (provided by Law Offices of Jack Bloxham)
• Products and Legal Issues (provided by Bernard & Stuczynski)  

Samsung "Jitterbug" Cell Phones Recalled Over 911 Flaw

Samsung is recalling about 160,000 of its cell phones because of a software flaw that may leave the devices unable to connect with 911 emergency operators in certain no-service areas.

The affected cell phones are Samsung's “Jitterbug” version, model numbers SPH-a110 and SPH-a120, sold at stores and online from March 2008 through May 2009, according to a News Release from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The problem is that when the phones are in a no-service area, they may display a message that reads “out of range, try again later,” even when callers are trying to connect to 911 in an emergency.

The Samsung "Jitterbug" cell phones, which feature larger keys and a simplistic number of functions, "are aimed at seniors and others who want a device without too many bells and whistles," according to the Wall Street Journal.

Samsung Telecommunications of America and San Diego-based Jitterbug are working to contact phone owners to schedule a free software upgrade. But CPSC is advising people who own the affected phones to call Samsung if they haven't already been contacted regarding the recall.

See the CPSC News Release on the Samsung Jitterbug recall for detailed product descriptions and company contact information. 

• CPSC Announcement of the Samsung "Jitterbug" Phone Recall (CPSC.gov)
• Wall Street Journal: Samsung Issues Jitterbug Recall
• Consumer Action Handbook: Cell Phones (FindLaw)
• Defective Products and the Law (FindLaw) 
• Personal Injuries Caused by Defective Products (provided by Kolker & Germeroth, LLC)

Seller Beware: Stricter Product Resale Rules Apply on eBay, Sidewalk

That 'As-Is' Tag Won't Necessarily Cut It, Legally Speaking

From televisions to children's toys, if you purchase a new consumer product from a retailer, you're likely aware of the legal remedies available to you if the product turns out to be defective. But you may not know that some degree of legal responsibility also falls on you as a reseller if you turn around and sell those products, in online auctions or even in garage sales.

That's because new federal laws on the sale of used products apply not only to owners of thrift stores and consignment shops, but also to people who sell items privately. How far do a reseller's legal responsibilities go under the new and stricter federal regulations on the sale of consumer products, and what kinds of products carry special rules? Before you hold that sidewalk sale after your spring cleaning -- or if you're a frequent buyer of used consumer products -- keep the following tips in mind.

Resale of Recalled Products. Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, ANY selling of recalled products is now unlawful. That means, if you sell a defective product that has been recalled by the manufacturer or federal safety officials, you may be held legally responsible for any injury it causes. So, it's a good idea to pay attention to recent Consumer Product Recalls, from the CPSC. 

Lead and Phthalates. New and stricter restrictions are placed on the resale of products that contain lead and certain types of phthalates, especially in certain toys and child care products, under the new federal product safety laws. Learn more: CPSC Spells Out Enforcement Policy for New Lead Limits in Children's Products.

Do I Need to Test Products I Sell? If you sell consumer products in online auctions and garage sales (and are not considered a manufacturer under the new product laws), you aren't required to test the products you sell for lead and phthalates, but you cannot knowingly sell children’s products that violate federal standards on the safe levels of these harmful materials. Learn more: Guidance on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

• CPSC Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers (CPSC.gov)
• Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008: Guidance | About the Act (CPSC.gov)
• CPSC Spells Out Enforcement Policy for New Lead Limits in Children's Products (CPSC.gov)
• Defective Products: Legal Issues (FindLaw)
• Injuries from Defective Products (provided by Stulce & Yantis, Attorneys at Law) 

House Votes for FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate the production, sale, and advertising of tobacco products, including cigarettes.

The House gave its approval to the FDA's oversight of tobacco by a 298-112 vote. Reuters reports that the bill "would give the FDA a range of authorities over the multibillion-dollar tobacco industry," including the power to "restrict advertising to children, require larger package warnings and force companies to lower -- but not eliminate -- nicotine content."

Next up for the bill is a Senate vote, where a battle looms, according to the New York Times. And if the measure passes there, it will make it to President Obama's desk for signature or rejection.

Cigarettes have been the controversial focus of personal injury and product liability cases for decades. In a number of high-profile lawsuits, the family members of deceased smokers have sued tobacco companies for knowingly marketing deadly products, and some plaintiffs have claimed that tobacco companies defrauded them into thinking light cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes.

Some tobacco litigation cases have led to huge damage awards over smokers' deaths. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away an appeal by tobacco industry giant Philip Morris, which sought to overturn a $79.5 million punitive damages order awarded to the widow of an Oregon cigarette smoker. 

Earlier this week, a federal tax increase on cigarettes took effect, raising the federal tax per pack from 39 cents to $1.01. 

• Reuters: U.S. House Votes to Grant FDA Authority Over Tobacco
• N.Y. Times: House Passes Tobacco Bill, But Senate Battle Looms 
• About the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA.gov)
• What FDA Regulates | What FDA Doesn't Regulate (FDA.gov)
• Philip Morris Appeal of $79.5M Punitive Damage Award Rejected (FindLaw's Injured Blog)
• Light Cigarettes: Health Issues and Lawsuits (FindLaw)
• Smoking in the Workplace (FindLaw)
• Cigarette Tax Increase Has Smokers Coughing It Up (FindLaw's Common Law Blog)

Fall Risk Prompts Fisher-Price "3-in-1" High Chair Recall

Fisher-Price on Tuesday announced that it is recalling a popular combination high chair/toddler booster seat, because a defect involving the booster seat's release mechanism can pose a fall hazard for infants and toddlers.

The recall includes about 24,000 Fisher-Price "3-in-1 High Chair to Booster" chairs that were sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide, from December 2008 through March 2009, for around $100. The affected product number (P5369) can be found on the side of the high chair seat, on a seat pad label, and on the packaging. Check out a step-by-step online guide from Mattel's Consumer Relations Answer Center, to find out whether a specific high chair is affected by the recall.

The "3-in-1 High Chair to Booster" can convert from a high chair to a booster seat via a few adjustments. But here is the problem that prompted the recall: "The seat can fall backwards from high chair frame if the booster seat release is unlatched while the child is in the product. Also, the seat back can detach if not fully snapped in place, posing a fall hazard and risk of serious injury to young children," according to a News Release from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Fisher-Price/Mattel has received one report of an infant skull fracture suffered in a fall that may be linked to the discovered hazard. The company is instructing parents and caregivers to stop using the recalled high chairs immediately and contact Fisher-Price for instructions and a free repair kit.

• Fisher-Price Recalls 3-in-1 High Chairs Due to Fall Hazard (CPSC.gov)
• Online Guide: Is Your High Chair Affected by the Recall? (Mattel.com)
• WebMD: Fall Risk Prompts High Chair Recall
• Defective and Dangerous Products (FindLaw)
• Legal Issues in Product Defect Cases (FindLaw)
• Personal Injuries from Dangerous or Defective Products (provided by Berger and Green, Attorneys at Law)

Child Safety: 9 Out of 10 Accidental Poisonings Occur in Home

The vast majority of accidents involving children and unintentional poisoning occur in the home and are caused by the ingestion of common consumer products, according to figures released last week by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). So, how can you make your home safer and protect your children?

Each year, accidental poisonings prompt more than 2 million calls to poison control centers, result in about 80,000 children being treated in ERs, and cause about 30 child deaths, according to a CPSC Press Release timed to conincide with National Poison Prevention Week (March 15-21). More than 90 percent of these emergencies stem from incidents in the home, including ingestion of medications, cleaning products, even things like lamp oil.

CPSC urges parents and caregivers to take three key steps to protect children from accidental poisoning in the home: 1) keep medicines and chemicals in original, child-resistant containers, 2) store potentially dangerous substances up high and out of a child’s sight and reach, and 3) keep the national toll-free poison control center phone number handy at all times (1-800-222-1222) in case of emergency. Learn more about ensuring your kids' safety: 10 Things to Think About: Preventing Childhood Injuries.

• CPSC Press Release on Accidental Child Poisonings
• 10 Things to Think About: Preventing Childhood Injuries (FindLaw)
• Health and Safety in the Home (FindLaw)
• Centers for Disease Control: National Poison Prevention Week (CDC.gov)
• Poisoning in the U.S.: Fact Sheet (CDC.gov)
• Poison Prevention Week (PoisonPrevention.org)
• This Week in Safety: Poison Prevention (ConsumerReports.org)
• Personal Injury Law Information Center (provided by The Law Firm of M. Paul Fischer, P.C.)

Smoking Smarties the Next Hazardous Fad for Kids?

Most people are probably familiar with the little rolls of powdery, sugary candy "tablets" frequently given out at Halloween. Yes, we're talking about "Smarties", but the little candy has been making unwelcome news headlines lately, with stories of kids "smoking" the candy.

Apparently, the practice isn't really so much "smoking" (there's no fire involved), as much as snorting or inhaling and then blowing out candy "smoke". Kids have taken to this practice for a variety of misguided reasons. One teen told the Wall Street Journal that "smoking Smarties [is] a 'cultural phenomenon' and says he likes it because 'it looks like you're smoking something but you're not.'" One YouTube user thought of it more as a prank, "To freak your mom out, sit behind a chair and just blow smoke up in the air with your mom in the room."

The WSJ described how kids go about smoking Smarties as follows:

"They crushed it into a fine powder in its wrapper, tore off one end, poured the powder into their mouths and blew out fine Smarties dust, mimicking a smoker's exhale."

That doesn't sound exceedingly alarming at first glance, but health experts say that "smoking" smarties is not too smart. A Mayo Clinic nose specialist "cautioned that frequent use could lead to infections or even worse, albeit rare, conditions, such as maggots that feed on sugary dust wedged inside the nose." It's probably tough for parents to come up with something more effective to convince their kids not to try this fad than by telling them they could end up with maggots up their nose.

Although a quick online search doesn't turn up any noteable injuries associated with smoking Smarties for purposes of legal liability, the candy's maker, Ce De Candy of New Jersey, is still not thrilled with this kind of publicity. The company's vice president of sales and marketing, Eric Ostrow, told the WSJ that smoking their product is "just dumb." However, the Business Insider also noted just how easy it is for an undesireable fad to catch fire in today's social-media world. Even though many of the YouTube videos were made long ago, it is only recently that one "video now appears near the top of the Google results page in a more general search for just 'Smarties.'" Ostrow continued, "It's certainly not endorsed by us. We don't endorse smoking, but we can't control what people do out there."

Companies face a tough task in how they deal with their brand and/or product being associated with an undesireable practice, such as smoking (which Ce De Candy actually banned at its factory in the 1980s, well ahead of its time). Although many might say that any PR is good PR, the association of kids, candy, and smoking might be a bit much. But for now, the company is apparently opting to simply disassociate itself with the practice and hope that the whole issue will blow over.

On the bright side, recent news stories have highlighted a government study noting that "[f]ewer teens are sniffing glue, lighter fluid, spray paint, shoe polish and other easy-to-find substances." Regardless, parents still might want to go ahead and just give their kids a heads up to be smart and just eat their Smarties.

• Wall Street Journal: Just Say No....to Smarties? Faux Smoking Has Parents Fuming
• Business Insider: Candy-Maker Tries To Ignore Kids Pretending To Smoke On YouTube [with Videos]
• Products Liability FAQ (provided by Hefferon & Hefferon, P.A.)
• AP: Fewer teens sniffing inhalants to get high (WRAL)

Petland Faces "Puppy Mill" Claims in Class Action Suit

Petland Inc., one of the nation's largest pet store chains, intentionally sold unhealthy puppies that came from disreputable breeders known as "puppy mills," according to a lawsuit filed this week by an animal rights group.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, was filed on Monday by six puppy purchasers and the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), against Ohio-based pet store chain operator Petland, Inc. and The Hunte Corporation, a distributor of puppies to pet stores. According to an HSUS News Release, the lawsuit “alleges that Petland and Hunte violated federal law and numerous state consumer protection laws by misleading thousands of consumers across the country into believing that the puppies sold in Petland stores are healthy and come from high-quality breeders,” when in reality, the suit claims, "[m]any of the puppies sold by Petland come either directly from puppy mills or puppy brokers such as Hunte, which operates as a middleman between the mills and Petland's retail stores."

In a Petland News Release that refers to the Humane Society as a "radical" group, company Vice President Joe Watson denies the allegations, saying that Petland puppies receive examination and health certification from licensed veterinarians prior to arrival at stores, and again before being taken home by a customer. Watson also states that the company advises new puppy owners to have their pets examined within the first week after being taken home.

A Columbus Dispatch article on the Petland lawsuit details the plight of one of the plaintiffs, Ruth Ross of Circleville, Ohio. Ms. Ross alleges that she purchased a puppy from Petland and spent more than two months nursing the dog through ailments like kennel cough, bronchitis, and pneumonia.

• Humane Society Press Release (HSUS.org)
• Read the Class Action Complaint [PDF file]
• Petland Responds to Attack from Radical Animal Rights Group (petland.com)
• Columbus Dispatch: Suit Accuses Petland of Selling Sick Dogs
• Do States Have Laws on Owners' Rights When Purchasing Animals? (FindLaw)
• Is Cruelty to Animals the Mere Destruction of Property? (FindLaw's Writ)
• Class Actions (provided by Erik B. Jensen P.C.)

DJ AM Adam Goldstein, Victim of Plane Crash with Travis Barker, Asking for $20M in Damages from Learjet and Others

A court document filed today indicates that DJ AM is looking for $20 million in damages from Learjet and other defendants for the airplane accident that left him and former Blink-182 drummer Travis Barker with severe burn injuries. Four others, including the pilots, as well as Barker's assistant and bodyguard, were killed in the crash which occurred in South Carolina on Sept. 20 of last year.

The AP noted that DJ AM, whose real name is Adam Goldstein, is "seeking $10 million for medical expenses, lost earnings, profits and economic damages and another $10 million related to non-economic losses, such as mental and physical pain".

In January, Learjet denied responsibility for the accident in court papers, specifically stating "Learjet alleges that any and all conditions [of the aircraft], if any there were, were solely a result of the failure to properly maintain and service the aircraft". Furthermore, Learjet suggested that "the damages suffered by the plaintiffs were 'either excessive, exaggerated, unreasonable, speculative, inflated or otherwise unnecessary and/or unrelated to the alleged incident.'"

Airplane accidents, as can be imagined, are very complex and the lawsuits stemming from such accidents usually involve a variety of defendants, ranging everywhere from the manufacturers of the plane and its parts, to the pilots and owners of planes, and even providers of planes' maintenance. The lawsuits arising from this accident are no exception as the finger of blame has been pointed everywhere from the pilots, to Goodyear (who made the plane's tires), to the airport.

An earlier article noted that federal aviation officials were "focusing on bare tires and debris on the runway as the causes of the crash". The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is the agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States, has preliminarily indicated both that "the wheels had very little rubber remaining and its brakes were severely damaged" and that the "cockpit voice recorder indicated that crewmembers expressed their belief that a tire blew as the jet was on the runway."

However, various of the companies being sued have asked for a delay until the government's investigation is entirely complete.

• AP: DJ AM seeks $20 million for plane crash damages
• People: Learjet Denies Responsibility for Travis Barker Plane Crash
• NY Times: Full Recovery Expected for Crash Survivors
• People: DJ AM Files Lawsuit in Fatal Learjet Crash
• CBS News: 4 Dead In S.C. Plane Crash
• Airplane Accidents and Injuries Overview (provided by Panter, Panter & Sampedro, P.A.)
• Accident & Incident Data (Federal Aviation Administration)
• Accident Database & Synopses (National Transportation Safety Board)
• Injury and Accident Center (FindLaw)