Alabama Litigation Review : North Alabama Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Jeff Blackwell : Hornsby, Watson, Hornsby, Blackwell & McKown Law Firm : Commercial Litigation, Workers' Compensation : Huntsville, Decatur, Athens

This morning I saw a post from Consumer Report's Safety Blog that contained an old Saturday Night Live skit that while hilarious, is an all too true reminder that many toys are clearly unsafe for our children.  While giving full credit to the Safety Blog, I have to re-post the skit.

In its post, the Safety Blog also provides some good, general advice concerning toys.  Their advice:

1.      Give your children only age-appropriate toys. Toys with small parts pose a choking risk and should be labeled as not for children younger than 3 years of age. The age grading that you may also find on toys not only relates to play value, but also to safety. No matter how developmentally advanced you think your child is, don’t give him or her a toy that’s intended for an older child.

2.      Be particularly cautious of toys bought from dollar stores. Our market surveillance has found that you’re much more likely to find substandard and unsafe toys at dollar stores than at major retailers.

3.      The toy’s packaging can be hazardous. Although the toy itself should have been tested for safety, its packaging likely hasn’t been.  Discard all toy packaging or at least keep it out of the reach of children.

All too often toys are manufactured without adequate safety standards or precautions.  Many of these dangerous toys are imported from countries that lack our safety rules.  The Safety Blog offers some valuable advice to avoid the potential for injury.  In addition, the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission lists on their website toy recalls.  The toys we give our children should be both fun and safe.  Hopefully, this Christmas they will be.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently spoke at a seminar where we had a great discussion about ongoing medical device and pharmaceutical litigation.  No, the companies that we discussed did not pay me to mention their products.  No, none of these large corporations agreed to host the seminar at a sunny beach location or at a ski resort.  Then, again, their executives probably would not have paid for the kind of honest discussion we had about the damage caused by some of their products.

However, these same companies have provided millions upon millions of dollars to various physicians and medical groups.  This includes money directly to physicians.  It also includes trips to the fun places I mentioned earlier.  This infusion of cash to the various physicians who are supposed to be unbiased in their assessment and research raises serious questions.  I have written about these issues previously.

According to the Birmingham Business Journal, we now learn that drug companies paid Alabama doctors $4.6 Million in 2009-2010.  A recently released document shows that one local physician, an internist in Decatur, even received over $200,000.00 in payments from GlaxoSmithKline, alone.  If you are taking notes, that is the same company that made billions marketing Avandia before the public became aware of its dangers.  The same company that apparently hid negative test results concerning Avandia.  The same company that may have paid one member of the FDA advisory panel.  I don't mean to single out Glaxo.  The same Decatur physician also received significant money during this short period of time from another pharmaceutical giant as well.

In fairness, I do not know the relationship between the local physician I mentioned and his patients.  I do believe, however, the process of approving and marketing drugs and medical devices to patients is tainted by the flow of money to physicians and those involved with the regulatory process.  If we ever want the process to focus on what should be the most important goals, patient health and safety, then we must insist on a regulatory process that requires full disclosure by both the companies and the decision makers.  We must also insist that patients have full disclosure of the relationships between their medical providers and the companies whose products the are providing.  I would certainly want to know if my doctor had received a significant amount of money from the drug company whose product he was now prescribing to me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday morning, November 21, 2006, a local school bus crashed over the railing of a Huntsville overpass and plunged to the ground below.  That morning several students lost their lives.  Many others suffered severe injuries.  When I learned of the tragic crash that morning, I quickly turned on the television and saw images of the mangled bus.  Seeing the bus and the distance it fell, it is amazing that so many students did survive.  This crash was one of those tragedies that impacts an entire community.

Following the accident, both Federal and Alabama agencies conducted extensive investigations.  The crash has resulted in a continuing discussion in Alabama concerning the safety of our children on school buses.  Hopefully, these studies and discussions will eventually lead to positive safety changes.

As individuals, many of the students or their families pursued damage claims.  I understand that the claims against the bus company and involved drivers have been settled.  Along with those claims, some of the injured students also initially filed, and continue to pursue, specific claims against the bus manufacturer alleging that the bus itself was defective.  Another group of injured students did not initially pursue product liability claims against the bus manufacturer.  These other students only attempted to allege product liability claims after first resolving their claims against the bus company and involved drivers.  Because this second group of students first alleged their product liability claims long after the tragic crash, the trial court ruled these additional claims had not been filed within the applicable statute of limitations and were barred.

The students appealed.  This provided the Alabama Supreme Court an opportunity to discuss Alabama law concerning the time in which a personal injury claim involving a child must be filed.  This post is certainly not a complete discussion concerning the limitations periods applicable to claims in Alabama.  Many factors affect the specific limitations period available to file a given claim.  As a result, an injured party should discuss their specific claim with an attorney as soon as possible.  However, the opinion released by The Alabama Supreme Court on December 3 does provide a good discussion of claims involving an injury to a child and how different rules apply to them.

If a person is a child when their right to pursue a claim arises, then the statute of limitations generally does not begin to run until the age of majority (adulthood), which is 19 in Alabama.  Again, this general rule is subject to certain other factors.  However, because the students injured in the bus crash were under the age of 19 when it occurred, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled they had additional time to pursue their claims.  This is an important reminder that if you suffered significant personal injury as a child and are now reaching adulthood, it may not be too late to pursue your claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link