Redding Personal Injury Lawyer

European Union Proposes Warnings on Magnetic Toys

Todd Slaughter — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:16:40 GMT

On April 21, 2008 the Commission of the European Communities decided to direct its European Member States to issue specific warnings on toys with magnetic parts. This followed the mass recall of these products issued by the United States Consumer Protection Agency, estimated to have involved over 17 million toys in America and Europe. Our firm recently settled one of these cases.

Defining the "magnetic toy" as a toy that contains or consists of one or more magnets or one or more magnetic components that are of ingestible shape and size, the European Commission directed its Member States to require the following warning: "Warning! This toy contains magnets or magnetic components. Magnets sticking together or becoming attached to a metallic object inside the human body can cause serious or fatal injury. Seek immediate medical help if magnets are swallowed or inhaled."

While we applaud the efforts of the European Commission, attention should not be taken away from the design and manufacture of these magnet incorporating toys. The magnets utilized in these toys are much more powerful than the typical "refrigerator" magnets that we are familiar with, and are often milled to a very small size to accomodate the components of the toy. Design specifications must insure that the magnets remain properly encapsulated in the toy during its expected life. Collaring methods should account for significant potential abuse, as once the magnet is freed it may easily escape detection. This would expose other toddlers, even those who never played with the toy, to the dangers associated with their ingestion.

We are also concerned that warnings may not always filter down to the persons overseeing the use of the toy. Child care centers, for example, often have bins or drawers of random toys that are collected and stored together. Attendants seldom are familiar with the warnings that may have accompanied the original packaging of the toy. It would be highly unusual for these attendants to have awareness about the hidden dangers of magnetic toys. Parents with this awareness should bring it to the attention of their child care providers, to have these toys removed from this setting.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Case Involving Dangerous Magnetic Toy Settles

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:33:17 GMT

Our firm recently settled an action brought on behalf of a four year-old child that was seriously injured when he ingested the magnetic parts of a Magnetix-brand building set. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

The Magnetix X-treme Combo is a modern day tinker-toy like building set where parts are attached together by magnets imbedded in the ends of plastic pieces of varying sizes. The toys were advertised as appropriate for children from the age of "3 to 100." They were manufactured and distributed by Rose Art and sold to the child's grandmother by Toys R' Us in Redding, California.

While playing with the toy, the parents noticed that the small magnets would occasionally separate from the plastic and remain magnetized to the steel ball connectors. For this reason, the toy was discarded. Unfortunately, the harm was already done.

Days after the toy had been thrown away, the child became extremely ill and was rushed to the hospital. There it was thought that he was suffering from a ruptured appendix. The child was rushed to an emergency surgery. Once the abdomen was opened, the physicians were astonished to find three small magnetic parts that had attached together in the peritoneum and perforated the cecum. This resulted in a severe case of peritonitis that would have killed the child within hours. To remove the magnets a portion of the intestines had to be removed. The lawsuit was filed in April of 2006.

In March of 2006 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of 3.8 million Magnetix toys. That recall came after the death of a toddler who had swallowed the toy's magnets. The original recall was subsequently expanded to include an additional 4 million Magnetix toys.

In April of 2007, CPSC issued a Consumer Alert warning of the serious injuries that toys with magnets were causing throughout the United States. At that point at least 33 children had been injured by swallowing loose magnets and required emergency surgery. There was one reported death.

The CPSC warned that "if two or more magnet components, or a magnet and another metal object are swallowed separately, they can attract to one another through intestinal walls. When this happens, parents and physicians may think that the materials will pass through the child. But with magnets this is often not the case. The magnets become trapped in the body and can twist or pinch the intestine, causing holes, blockage and infection in the intestine or blood poisoning. All of which can lead to death."

Our experience with these toys is that they are dangerous not only to the child that is playing with them, but particularly dangerous to infants and toddlers in the home. The magnets are less than ¼ inch in diameter and 1/8 inch high. They easily become invisible in carpet or behind furniture and can be swallowed by an infant at a time when the parent has already put the toy away. The Magnetix line of toys are not the only toys that incorporate tiny strong magnets that pose the same dangers. Other toys include Polly Pockets, magnetic jewelry and other brands of magnetic building sets.

WARNING TO PARENTS

1. If you have these toys you should immediately return them to the store where it was purchased. Further, before returning the toy, examine it carefully to see if any magnets have become dislodged from the ends of the parts. If so, search your home carefully to find any missing pieces.

2. Seek prompt medical attention if you suspect your child may have swallowed a magnet.

3. Look for non-specific abdominal symptoms: abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

4. Note that these objects may appear in an x-ray as one piece when they could be multiple pieces trapped in the intestines.

We were very happy to successfully conclude this matter on behalf of our young client and his parents. More importantly, however, we were gratified that our work identified another dangerous toy that had entered the American marketplace, and that we played a role in having those toys removed from our shelves.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

For a Great Summer, Keep the Pool Safe

Todd Slaughter — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:40:38 GMT

As summer approaches pool owners must remind themselves to be ever vigilant to prevent the catastrophe of a child drowning or serious pool-related injury.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, drowning is the leading cause of accidental death of children under the age of 5 in California, Arizona and Florida. Each year more than 300 children in this age group drown in residential swimming pools, usually a pool owned by their family. More than 2,000 children in this group are treated in hospital emergency rooms for submersion injuries.

These statistics are real in Northern California. As the hot summer weather approaches, families, friends and neighbors often gather in backyards for informal get-togethers. Often there is a pool where the children are left free to swim and play. Adults may be socializing, barbequing, or attending to a simple chore, such as answering the phone, when catastrophe occurs.

Following some simple safety precautions could prevent such a mishap from occuring during your gathering:

Safety Tips

1. Never leave a child unsupervised near a pool. During social gatherings, appoint a "designated watcher" to sit poolside with undivided attention to young children in or about the pool. Distracted or preoccupied adults put children at risk.

2. If a child is missing, check the pool first. Seconds count in preventing death or disability. Go to the edge of the pool and scan the entire pool, bottom and surface, as well as the pool area.

3. Do not allow a young child in the pool without an adult.

4. Do not consider a child "drown proof" because he has had swim lessons. Children must be closely watched while swimming.

5. Do not use flotation devices as a substitute for supervision.

6. Keep rescue equipment by the pool.

7. Remove toys from in and around the pool when it is not in use. Toys attract young children.

8. Never prop open the gate to a pool barrier.

Remember, a few minutes of thought and planning about the potential dangers that pools present to children can save a family from a life-time of guilt, regret and remorse.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Deputy Rear-ends Truck, Driving at a Safe Speed?

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:50:00 GMT

RED BLUFF, CA. On Saturday, May 3, 2008, a young couple from Oakland traveling southbound on I-5 were rearended by a Tehama County Sheriff's patrol car. The collision caused the couple's truck to veer off the freeway into the center median where it overturned. The injured couple were taken to St. Elizabeth's hospital in Red Bluff for treatment.

It appears that Deputy Sheriff J.A. Roberts maintains that the Oakland couple were traveling at a speed below expected "freeway speeds" when he impacted them. The news account does not clarify their speed, but reports that the deputy was traveling at 70 mph.

It seems ironic that the deputy would suggest that the cause of the accident was the speed of the slower moving vehicle, when traffic officers in Northern California have taken the position for years that "there is no safe speed that results in a collision." Accordingly, local enforcement authorities often site drivers who are traveling at the posted limits or below, simply because they are involved in a car accident.

The law in California is not what the officers contend. Vehicle Code section 22350, the basic speed law, prohibits drivers from driving at a speed that is greater than is "reasonable or prudent," giving due regard to traffic conditions, weather, width of the road, etc. Additionally, drivers may not drive at a speed that "endangers" the safety of persons or property.

The popular law enforcement intrepretation replaces "reasonable and prudent" with "any speed that results in an accident." This is not a plausible construction of the statutory language. Further, the term "endangers" implies that the driver "creates" or should appreciate that his speed may cause harm to someone. "Endangers" does not mean, any speed that "results" in an accident as argued by local enforcment. It would have been simple for the Legislature to substitute the word "endangers" with "results" if that is what they intended. It was not.

Speed certainly can be a factor in automobile collisions, but to assert that the mere fact that an accident occured means that a vehicle was not traveling at a reasonable and prudent speed for the conditions is a misinterpretation of the law and often leads to a misinterpretation of the facts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

New Ramp at Kutras Park Only Diverts Attention from Safety Issues at Cypress Bridge

Internal Administrator — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:31:27 GMT

REDDING, Ca. The Redding City Council will review a proposal to open a new boat ramp at Kutras Lake, approximately 1/4 mile upstream of the construction zone at the Cypress Ave. Bridge. The landowner, the philanthropic McConnell Foundation, has offered to open the ramp in exchange for some improvements to the parking lot on Park Marina Dr. The proposal is offered to address the recent closure of boating to this area.

If the proposal is accepted, boaters will be allowed to access the Sacramento River at the boat ramp at the Posse Grounds and float approximately one mile of river before taking out at Kutras Lake. This will allow boaters to avoid encountering the construction pilings at the Cypress Bridge. However, to pass further down the river, boaters will have to trailer their boats to the next available ramp at So. Bonnyview, approximately 3 miles downstream.

This proposal has the support of the local flyfishing guides that put in at the Posse Grounds and take out at Bonnyview or points further downstream. According to Michael Caranci, guide services manager at the Fly Shop, this proposal would open up "one of the most popular and beautiful stretches of [the] river."

While I agree that this one mile stretch of the river is beautiful, we need to remain mindful of what is at risk here. If the ramp is opened, access to the river will again be allowed at the Posse Grounds. If the river is opened to all that enjoy it, i.e., kayakers, canoers, rafters and tubers, numerous access points will be utilized. The problem is that once these flotilla are permitted on this stretch, it will only be a matter of time before someone misses the pull out at Kutras, or decides to take "the adventure" of attempting to navigate through the construction pilings. In order to thwart such an occurrence, the Shasta County Sheriff's Department will be required to dedicate a good part of its boating assests and funds to patrol this tiny stretch of the river.

Another matter that must be considered is what will happen when construction for the expansion of the Highway 44 bridge gets fully underway. A significant amount of fill has already been pushed out onto the river bed, narrowing the passage of the entire river into a channel that is approximately 40-60 feet wide. What if CalTrans decides to shut down boating passage during the period of construction. The Kutras Lake ramp, which sits approximately 1/3 of a mile downstream, will become useless.

With hundreds of miles of beautiful river available for boating, fishing and floating both above the Posse Grounds and below the Cypress Bridge, it seems senseless to dedicate so much of taxpayers resources to a tiny stretch of river that will be closed for a relatively short span of time.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Internal Administrator

Cell Phone Causes Another Serious Crash

Todd Slaughter — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:50:06 GMT

PAYNES CREEK, Ca. A 37 year-old woman ran off Manton Road at 9:20 a.m. yesterday with her 6 month-old daughter in the back seat. The car drifted off the shoulder while the driver was talking on her cell phone. She then overcorrected, lost control and eventually landed in a ditch. The driver suffered a broken left arm. Fortunately, the infant was not injured.

This crash which occurred several miles northeast of Red Bluff in Tehama County highlights the dangers of driving while talking on a cell phone, even in rural areas where traffic is not an issue. Paying attention to the phone conversation takes attention away from the roadway. This is one reason that the law will change in California in July, restricting the use of cell phones to "hands free" devices.

This crash follows a recent pattern of crashes in the Northern California area where cell phones played a major role in catastrophe. On August 13, 2007, a mother of four was killed when stopped at a construction site on State Route 44 west of Shingletown. Another woman was proceeding behind her at approximately 50 mph texting Verizon for her account information when she slammed into the stopped vehicle. The stopped car burst into flames, killing the woman.

On December 6, 2007, a young teenaged driver proceeding northbound on Hilltop Dr. in Redding on a rainy dark night, veered directly into the path of a southbound vehicle. A catastrophic head-on collision ensued. The culprit - the teenager's cell phone. When questioned by the investigating officer, the young driver did not know that he had even crossed over the double line into oncoming traffic.

For more information about California's changing cell phone law, see our blog.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

New Ramp at Kutras Park Only Diverts Attention from Safety Issues at Cypress Bridge

Todd Slaughter — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:26:53 GMT

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Sheriff's Armada Practice Wet-Run Rescue at Cypress Bridge

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:36:19 GMT

An armada of Shasta County Sheriff jetboats and inflatable boats descended upon the construction site at the Cypress Ave. Bridge for maneuvers intended to simulate potential rescue scenarios. Divers clad in full wet-suits, fins, helmets and life jackets dropped into the water, sometimes tethered, to float between the pilings of the construction trestles and bridge abutments, presumably to take hold of a person clinging for life to the structures or a capsized vessel. Several "wet-runs" were taken during the day.

To the casual observer it appeared to be an exercise in futility. In every case the divers had little control over the direction that they coursed through the pilings and obstructions. The current was too strong for the divers to remain static or move laterally to any significant degree. Unless they "hit the target" the first time, the divers quickly found themselves downstream away from the rescue area. More significantly, the time that it would take to amass the boats, equipment and divers and launch to the site would very likely exceed the time for survivability in the very swift and cold waters of the Upper Sacramento River.

Pursuant to the regulations recently passed by the Redding City Council, boat passage beneath the Cypress Bridge construction site is prohibited when flows of the river exceed 7000 cfs. Currently passage is closed. At considerable expense, the Shasta County Sheriff's Office has now learned the wiseness of this closure, as the likelihood of a successful rescue effort within the construction zone is highly questionable. With this new knowledge, it may be prudent to again review whether boating passage would be safe even at lower flows.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Rain/Speed Cause Death on Highway 299

Todd Slaughter — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:39:33 GMT

DOUGLAS CITY. A collision between two trucks on Highway 299 in Trinity County resulted in death on Tuesday, April 22, 2008. The driver of an eastbound tire truck was struck head-on by a westbound flatbed near the Grass Valley Creek Bridge. The flatbed apparently lost control because of speed and wet pavement. A steady rain had been falling all day. The 43-year old driver of the tire truck was killed. The three occupants of the flatbed suffered only minor injuries.

Accidents such as this one stand as a constant reminder that speed on the mountain roads of Northern Claifornia, particularly when weather conditions are changing, often kills. The "seconds" that may be saved in arriving a bit earlier is never worth the life that is taken or lost.

Our condolences go out to the survivors of the deceased.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

BOAT HITS BRIDGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, MAN DIES

Todd Slaughter — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:03:15 GMT

Anderson, California. As I have observed the on-going construction on the Cypress Avenue Bridge from my office window, I have grown increasingly concerned about the boating hazards that any kayaker, rafter, drift boater, or power boater must encounter to travel under the construction trestle. In prior blogs, I have discussed the safety issues that have been pointed out by the State and the Sheriff's Office.

I was disheartened to learn this morning that a drift boat capsized yesterday at the North Street Bridge in Anderson killing one of the fisherman aboard. This bridge, 7 miles downstream from the Cypress Ave. Bridge, is also under construction. It is not clear from the account whether the boat struck the construction pilings or the bridge itself. A 30- foot passage is designated for boating traffic to utilize.

The death of this 56 year old fisherman from San Jose underscores the fact that these construction sites over the water are inherently dangerous to boaters. The Sacramento River in our region is swift, cold and unforgiving. All boaters should use extreme caution when approaching these construction sites.

Work has started on the expansion of the State Route 44 bridge near Turtle Bay. This will mean that 3 of the 4 main bridges across the Sacramento in our region will be under construction for the next two to three years. With the death of one boater already upon us, safety of the boating public should be the primary concern of the local governments and construction companies in regulating the use of the river during this time.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter