So Goody and I took His Majesty over to the mall today. The goals were simple: exploit the collapse of the economy for low prices (generally), and find a birthday present for her (specifically). But with the specter of law school haunting me wherever I go, even such pleasantly banal endeavors become fodder for a discussion of product liability.
Some background, mercantile. The MacLaren Company makes baby things, most notably a line of exceedingly popular strollers. These run the gamut from those available at mass market retailers to models branded for both Kate Spade and Juicy Couture. These can be purchased to the extent that you wish to have luxury goods covered in biological excretions.
An update, governmental. Last Monday, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of one million MacLaren Strollers made within the last ten years. These strollers are commonly referred to as “umbrella strollers” for their folding mechanism and small profile when closed, making them ubiquitous in urban areas. The convenience is offset however, as they have a nasty tendency to lop off little tykes fingers if caught in the hinge (12 reported cases to date). MacLaren evidently knew this since 2004 but failed to report it to the CPSC. This delay was compounded by the company’s website crashing as millions of owner’s sought the protective covers the company was giving away. The damage – to my mind – seems limitless. As Pete Blackshaw, a consultant from Nielsen made in an article in Time “Anything relative to child safety tends to be off-the-charts viral.” indeed.
All this led me to chatting – at some length – with a fellow father at Nordstrom’s while both of our wives were trying on jeans, about possible torts related to the stroller his 9 month old was napping in. He had already ordered the covers, and had modified the position of the seat to prevent any chance of interaction between child and fingers. Both of us agreed that if MacLaren knew that the product had a risk of “traumatic amputation” and did nothing to modify the product or alert people to the risk, the end might be nigh.
And with that, back to the study of Chapter 11, which seems oddly appropriate for the good people at MacLaren.
No related posts.
Parent should be more careful – know where your child is at all times. What’s next, suing GM when I slam my child’s finger in the car door? GM is probably aware of this risk. I will have to read my auto manual to see if there is a warning to keep my child’s fingers away from the car door when closing it. Many products pose risks when used improperly.
Certainly, parents are required to apply a reasonable standard of care when managing their little ones. If you let your 3 year old carve the turkey, the consequences are on you. This case is a little different. Almost unimaginably, I turn to the New York Post for a quote:
Fair enough. A legal obligation imposed upon manufacturers of consumer goods. So when did MacLaren discover this design flaw?
So they knew about the design flaw for at least 5 years and didn’t make a modification. This does not undermine your point about parental responsibility. Except, as the DeWinter case points out, this thing was like a machine press:
This is not a case where a kid had one bad day after multiple uses, or that the hinge failed over time. No, this thing gave poor Master DeWinter the chop while his mother was shopping for it.
If a known design flaw and failure to comply with a federal relagtion are not enough to attach liability, how about failure to design the hinge in conformity with Federal standards?
Ohhhhh! You mean Robert Moro of Capt. Moro, LLC?
I feel convinced now that our expert witness is completely credible. Keep looking…
From Wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a irrelevent characteristic or belief of a and person advocating the premise.
Shame on you for your distain for the noble charter boat captains among us.
Nay I say. There is no disdain for nobles such as these.
But I would challenge his status as an expert witness in a 2007 trial, given he left the Commission in 2005, and given he now runs a charter marine service.
His running a charter boat service seems proof positive that he has been able to marshal his skills far better than you or I. None of which changes the facts that MacLaren’s goose is probably cooked for putting a Slap Chop ® on the side of its prams.