Over the last ten years injuries caused by toys have increased by an astounding 54 percent.  Not coincidentally, the increase in toy-related injuries and deaths tracks perfectly with the increase in the number of toys imported from foreign countries into the U.S. market.  And the problem has now gone beyond the manageable:  as a nation, we now import fully 95 percent of the toys sold here.  Lest you think that our concern is protectionist or unreasonable, bear in mind that by far the vast majority of toys subject to a U.S. recall last year were imported.

And how can we expect our government to combat this problem?  The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, charged with protecting us from dangerous, defective products, has grossly inadequate funding and staffing to counter the problem.  Until 2007, the agency had only 15 employees responsible for monitoring all U.S. ports – a level of staffing that is practically a joke.  The CPSC also has only a single employee to conduct tests on the 30,000 tons of toys imported annually.  As for funding, to get a sense of the problem, consider this:  the CPSC’s entire annual budget is roughly five percent of the amount spent by Walmart on marketing each year.

It is small wonder, then, that parents have no confidence in the CPSC’s ability to protect their children.  As a new report by the American Association for Justice notes, parents must instead rely on consumer groups and the civil justice system to police toymakers and sellers.  The problem with this strategy, of course, is that while the CPSC is authorized to take action to prevent injuries and deaths, these other alternatives only come into play after a child has been injured or killed.

While our Chicago product liability attorneys are disappointed at the ineffectiveness of the CPSC, we remain hopeful that the civil justice system will eventually have a proactive, preventative effect.  If enough parents have the courage and strength to take legal action when their children are injured or killed, toymakers and sellers will eventually be “scared straight.”  If simple morality cannot force these companies to act responsibility, perhaps a real threat of liability can.

In the meantime, the AAJ report provides a helpful outline of some of the most prevalent toy dangers. While most parents are familiar with the classic toy hazards, such as small parts that may prove a chocking risk for younger children, today’s dangers go far beyond these classic concerns.  As the AAJ report states, “Now, the danger comes from lead, cadmium, asbestos, and other carcinogens undetectable to the eye, or small, innocent-looking magnets that can rip a child apart from the inside.”

Our product liability lawyers have previously written about the dangers of magnetic toys.  In addition, parents should be particularly cautious when purchasing, or allowing children to use, scooters.  These devices alone account for one-quarter of all toy-related emergency room visits.  While some of this is due to negligent use and automobile accidents, defective and dangerous scooters also play a part, causing everything from severe lacerations to amputations.

Likewise, lead contamination remains a serious issue, especially in imported toys.  Children’s jewelry, in particular, is often contaminated.  In fact, although nearly 18 million items of children’s jewelry have been recalled in the last five years, the AAJ reports that twenty percent of these items still contain unsafe levels of lead.  And various other studies have found as many as one-third of tested toys to contain unsafe lead levels.

And in the shadow of lead, a new hazard has emerged: cadmium contamination.  The AAJ reports that the number of imported toys, particularly from China, containing unsafe levels of this known carcinogen is increasing exponentially, as manufacturers simply replace toxic lead with toxic cadmium.  These are just two of the many toxic substances that have been recently found in hugely popular toys, from lethal asbestos in children’s “CSI” kits to Rohypnol  (the “date rape drug”) in hugely popular children’s beading sets Aquadots.

This is simply unacceptable.  Our Chicago products liability lawyers join with the AAJ in urging Congress to properly fund the CPSC, so that it can fulfill its mandate to protect American consumers, particularly our children.  Until then, we hope that courageous parents will continue to come forward and take action when their children are injured.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Generally, individual defendants and business owners owe plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care.  Common carriers, however, generally have a heightened duty, or duty of “highest care” to ensure the safety of their passengers. This is because mass-transit systems, like airplanes, trains and buses are responsible for the safety of many thousands of members of the public.  To speak with a top Chicago train accident attorney, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

The natural accumulation rule is a bright-line test to determine whether someone may recover damages for injuries sustained in slip and falls caused by ice, snow or water.  Under the rule, if a person is injured by snow and ice that accumulated naturally, she cannot recover for her injuries.  The question for common carriers becomes: should they still be held to the heightened duty of care standard, or may they shield themselves from liability by clinging to the natural accumulation rule?

The Chicago premises liability lawyers of Passen Law Group join with others in urging the Illinois Supreme Court to reject this unreasonable shield for the negligence of Chicago’s transit agencies and companies.

The natural accumulation rule was constructed by the courts for ease of application.  When the courts develop a hard-and-fast rule, they can then simply apply that rule to each case without delving into the particular facts and circumstances.  In tort law, a defendant is liable if he owed a duty to the plaintiff, and breached that duty, causing injury.  Generally, courts must weigh a number of factors to determine if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, including: whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable, the likelihood of the injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury (for instance, how much would it cost), and the consequences of making the defendant guard against the injury.

Thus, when dealing with a plaintiff injured by accumulations of snow and ice, using general tort law the court would likely have to consider many of the following factors (among others):  Should the defendant have foreseen that accumulations of snow and ice will cause hazards during the Chicago winter?  How easy would it be for the defendant to keep the platforms clear of snow and ice?  What means are available for doing so, and at what cost (spreading salt or sand, shoveling, covered platforms, stopping the train at a safer portion of the station, the use of treads on pedestrian surfaces)?  Could the defendant have made the situation safe without compromising continued service?  The natural accumulation rule relieves the courts from the burden of undertaking this analysis.  Instead, they simply must determine whether the defendant did anything to make the situation worse.  If not, then even if the defendant callously  ignored a dangerous situation, the victim cannot be compensated for her injuries.  The experienced Chicago Accident Attorneys of Passen Law Group know that this rule causes unfair results for the victims of negligence.

In Krywin, an elderly woman was injured when she slipped and fell on ice while exiting a CTA Red Line train on the southbound platform at Sheridan Road.  Her fall resulted in a broken leg, surgery, and nearly a month in the hospital.  Our attorneys have represented

She suffered from the pain of the accident and her recovery, as well as permanent disability and scarring.  At trial, the court allowed a jury to hear the case, and the victim was awarded nearly $400,000 in damages.  The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District reversed this award however, stating that because the victim was injured by a natural accumulation of ice and snow, the CTA bore no responsibility for the condition of its platforms.

As stated by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association in their brief in support of the Plaintiff’s appeal, the natural accumulation rule is “an amorphous creature, living within the confines of legal fiction, which apparently rises from an accumulation of snow or ice and lives just long enough to keep an injured plaintiff from reaching an open courthouse door.”

The natural accumulation rule certainly makes things easier for courts and defendants.  However, the personal injury lawyers of Passen Law Group recognize that the rule creates unjust and disastrous consequences for those injured by the negligence of common carriers.  Under the natural accumulation rule, a responsible transit agency who continually clears ice and snow and spreads salt during a Chicago blizzard is treated exactly the same as a company who lets the ice and snow from that storm sit untouched for weeks:  both are not liable if a passenger should slip and fall.

This result is obviously unacceptable.  In Chicago and the rest of Illinois, like many other places, large numbers of people rely on public transportation to get to and from work and to conduct their lives.  The common carriers who transport these people, including Metra, the CTA, and the RTA, have a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to ensure the safety of their passengers – even during the notorious Chicago winter.  We at Passen Law Group urge the Illinois Supreme Court not to take the easy way out, and to reject the natural accumulation rule, at the very least as to the common carriers of Illinois.  When the rule is rejected, our experienced Chicago accident lawyers are ready to seek justice for those injured when negligence allows the Chicago winter to become hazardous.

For a free consultation with an experienced Illinois personal injury attorney at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

While the Tribune piece provided the relevant information about this trend from a purely business standpoint, what was lacking was any analysis of the effect on public safety.  The Chicago trucking accident attorneys of Passen Law Group, however, are extremely concerned that this short-sighted thinking will lead to a slew of avoidable accidents and injuries.

To counter the effects of the economic recession, trucking companies are “refitting” trucks that previously would have been replaced.  Instead of retiring a vehicle at around 400,000 miles, the trucking industry is now hoping to make these trucks last up to 1 million miles.  The implications for safety are obvious.

Although these older trucks are undergoing repairs and so-called “refitting,” at a cost of about $19,000, before returning to duty on America’s highways, much of the work is cosmetic or done to enhance the comforts of the driver, with no actual improvement to the safety of the truck.  For example, Navistar’s truck refitting includes new curtains for the sleeping cab behind the driver’s seat.

The Illinois truck accident lawyers of Passen Law Group commend the effort to improve the quality of life for America’s hardworking truckdrivers.  This is particularly true when the alterations to the trucks improve the chances that a driver will be well-rested during his driving hours.  According to the Federal Highway Administration, fatigue is the number one safety issue facing the trucking industry.  A recent study also revealed that driving while fatigued or drowsy increases crash risk by four to six times.  For these reasons, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will now require recorders in the trucks of those companies found deficient during on-site reviews, to ensure that drivers are not spending too much time behind the wheel.

The fact remains that these alterations, while commendable for other reasons, do nothing to enhance or restore the safety of these older trucks.  Our experienced truck accident lawyers know all too well the unspeakable damage that can be done when an unsafe vehicle is kept on the roads.  Far too many trucking accidents already occur due to the failure to perform repairs on aging truck components, or the negligent performance of those repairs when they are done.  For example, the recent fatal trucking accident in Kentucky involved a company with a safety rating that should have removed it from America’s highways entirely, and a truck that had been cited for safety problems six times since 2008 and indeed broke down and needed repairs immediately prior to the crash.  In light of this and other recent crashes, the decision to rely even more heavily on repair for vehicles that would ordinarily be withdrawn from service is troubling, to say the least.

This strategy is also shortsighted.  While extending the life of these vehicles may save money in the short-term, the damage that will be done could far outstrip those savings.  When drivers and others a re injured, disabled, or even killed by these older vehicles, the trucking companies must be called to account for this decision.  Should that occur, the top Chicago personal injury lawyers of Passen Law Group have the necessary experience to obtain justice for the victims of the trucking industry’s cost-cutting.  However, we at Passen Law Group sincerely hope that the trucking industry will return to a regular replacement routine before the damage is done – both to the companies’ long term financial interests and to the drivers and innocent motorists whose lives may be destroyed or lost.

For a free consultation with a top-rated Chicago truck accident lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.