PRODUCT LIABILITY. Defective Design. $______ RECOVERY

• Pages: 16-17

At that return visit, the plaintiff saw the PA, who or-

dered an X-ray, which she interpreted as ankylosing

spondylitis and prescribed additional medication and

advised the plaintiff to resume his physical activities

despite complaints of pain described as 10 out of

10. When the X-ray was reviewed by a radiologist, the

radiologist advised the defendant that the X-ray dis-

closed a suggestive fracture of the plaintiff’s spine at

T11, as well as the ankylosing spondylitis and

recommended further diagnostic imaging.

The defendants failed to advise the plaintiff to seek

immediate hospital care and instead scheduled the

CT-scan of the plaintiff’s spine, as a routine test, not

an emergent test, for several days after the visit.

When the plaintiff presented for the imaging and lay

down, there was an audible pop heard and he indi-

cated that he could not longer feel his lower extremi-

ties. It was determined that the plaintiff suffered a

fracture at T11 which caused permanent damage to

his spinal cord rendering him paraplegic.

The plaintiff brought suit against the urgent care facil-

ity, the physician and the PA who treated him, alleg-

ing negligence. The plaintiff contended that an

earlier imaging would have disclosed the fracture

which could have been diagnosed and treated be-

fore the permanent damage to his spinal cord oc-

curred, which was completely preventable. The

defendants disputed the allegations and negligence

and maintained that there was no deviation from ac-

ceptable standards of care. The defendants also dis-

puted the plaintiff’s claim for injuries and damages.

The parties agreed to resolve the plaintiff’s claim for

the sum of $1,100,000 in a confidential settlement

between the parties.

REFERENCE

John Doe vs. Physician Roe, et al., 11-15-20.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Patrick T. Jones, Ralph Liguori

and Richard W. Paterniti of Jones Kelleher in Boston,

MA.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Defective Design

$4,500 RECOVERY

Product liability – Defective design – Plaintiff

suffers severe burns when defendants’ e-cigarette

battery explodes in his pants pocket – Severe burn

injuries to lower extremities, buttocks, chest and

arms – Lost wages; significant scarring, emotional

distress.

Camden County, NJ

In this product liability case, the plaintiff asserted

that the defendants negligently manufactured and

sold to the plaintiff an e-cigarette with a defective

battery design that caused the plaintiff severe and

permanent injury. The defendants all denied

liability and collectively argued that they did not

act maliciously, wantonly, willfully, negligently,

carelessly and/or recklessly; did not fail to act in

accordance with legal obligations; did not create,

maintained, knew about and/or allowed to exist a

dangerous condition; did not design,

manufacture, repair /or sell a defective battery,

especially insofar the battery at issue was

unforeseeably negligently maintained and/or

used by the plaintiff or other unknown third

parties.

The plaintiff purchased an electronic cigarette and

related parts from the defendants. The defendants

were the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and

retailers of the electronic cigarette and related parts.

On September 29, 2016, the plaintiff was at work

when suddenly his e-cigarette battery exploded in his

pocket, shooting flames down his pants, causing seri-

ous personal injuries. The plaintiff contended that the

defendant retailer, defendant wholesaler, and defen-

dant manufacturer were negligent in producing and

selling a defective product that caused permanent

injury to the plaintiff.

The device and flames from the explosion burned the

plaintiff’s pants and burned through the pocket, hit-

ting his bare skin. The plaintiff immediately attempted

to extinguish the flames. As a result of the explosion,

the plaintiff sustained severe burn injuries to his lower

extremities, buttocks, chest and arms. The plaintiff

was unable to work due to his injuries which required

extensive dressing and frequent dressing changes.

The plaintiff experienced severe pain from his wounds

for months afterward and claims physical and

emotional scarring from the experience.

The defendants argued that they acted reasonably

and prudently at all times, and thus, to the extent that

the plaintiff’s accident and resulting injuries or dam-

ages were caused by the negligence or intentional

acts or omissions of anyone, said negligence or in-

tentional acts or omissions were committed by the

plaintiff himself, by other unknown parties. The defen-

dants each claimed that any negligence was com-

mitted by other co-defendants. The defendant

distributor was released on summary judgment after

the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant distribu-

tor was the distributor of the specific battery that

caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

Volume 36, Issue 7, July 2021

VERDICTS BY CATEGORY 16

Subscribe Now