Product Liability Accidents

Defective elevating scissor lift  Settlement in product liability suit for construction worker who sustained severe crush injuries due to the defective design of a safety device in an elevating scissor lift that allowed the lift to rise due to inadvertent contact with the joystick - the very hazard the safety device was intended to prevent.  

Defective hammer drill  Jury award in a product liability case to a union plumber for severe hand injury while using a defective hammer drill.

Defective plastic injection molding machine  Settlement for machine operator's hand injury against machine manufacturer for defective design of control panel.

Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co. 364 Mass. 153 (1973) and 14 Mass. App Ct. 448 (1982)  Landmark case deciding for the first time in Massachusetts that a husband or wife has a claim for damages (loss of consortium) when their spouse is injured by negligence or wrongdoing.

doCanto v. Ametek, Inc., 367 Mass. 776 (1975)  Jury verdict to a Sugarman client for injuries caused by a defectively designed laundry machine which injured a worker was affirmed on appeal by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Case established precedent allowing into evidence safety changes made after the manufacture of the defective machine.

Downs v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., 677 F. Supp. 661 (D. Mass. 1987)  A new trial was granted to allow Sugarman lawyers to present the plaintiff’s claims of negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability against the defendant.

Food poisoning at wedding reception  Settlement for 37 guests (including the bride) who suffered food poisoning as a result of contaminated berries served at dessert.

Griffin v. General Motors Corp., 380 Mass. 362 (1980)  Jury verdict against General Motors affirmed on appeal where an improperly designed car allowed fumes from engine to enter passenger compartment, explode and severely burn the driver. The Supreme Judicial Court decided that the experiment performed by Sugarman lawyers on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the faulty design could be used against General Motors.

Haidak v. Collagen Corp., 67 F. Supp.2d 21 (D. Mass. 1999)  Product liability claim of injuries from injections of bovine collagen was not pre-empted by Federal pre-market approval process. The decision allowed Sugarman lawyers to proceed with our client’s claim.

Hemric v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 575 F. Supp. 254 (D. Mass. 1983) , aff’d, 739 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984)  The statue of limitations is a matter of procedure governed by the law of the forum state.