Alabama Injury Lawyers Blog

As parents know, listening to loud music on a MP3 player is a way of life for many young people.  With today's MP3 players, users enjoy long battery life, vast storage space, and volume of up to 120 decibels.  But as Yale's Professor Peter Rabinowitz notes, "the use of personal music players has grown faster than our ability to assess their potential health consequences."
 
In a recent study published in the British Journal of Medicine, Professor Rabinowitz observes that the misuse of MP3 players can have life-long consequences.  This is because loud music, like any loud noise, can damage delicate hair nerve cells in the inner ear over time.  Prolonged exposure to loud noise can cause permanent hearing damage, and the longer a person is exposed to loud noise, the worse the damage is.
 
And the design of popular MP3 players may exacerbate the potential for hearing loss.  In a recent lawsuit, Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009), the plaintiffs sued Apple alleging that the "iPod is defective because it poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss to its users."  The plaintiffs brought multiple claims alleging that Apple's MP3 player is inherently dangerous because it comes with stock ear buds (designed to be placed deep into the ear canal rather than over the ears) which increase the danger of hearing damage, and lacks any volume meter that will inform users they are listening at dangerous levels.  The district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that (1) the plaintiffs' allegations "suggest only that users have the option of using an iPod in a risky manner, not that the product lacks any minimum level of quality" and (2) the alleged injuries were merely hypothetical because no plaintiff had yet to suffer "the requisite injury in fact."  Despite this court ruling, emerging medical research indicates that MP3 players can cause hearing loss in children if misused.  
 
In light of this research, and this holiday season, parents can take simple precautions to protect their child's hearing.  Monitoring the volume and length of exposure, as well as replacing stock "ear buds" with traditional headphones, are simple things which could go a long way toward preventing hearing loss.
By Eric Wood and Gregory S. Cusimano

Scalia writes for what some have called the big business wing of the court, that if you signed an unfair arbitration agreement and therefore claim it is unenforceable, you still cannot go to court -- the arbitrator gets to decide if it was unfair.

The main question involved is whether one is able to go to court to determine if an arbitration agreement could be set aside because it was legally unconscionable.

The Supreme Court said if the agreement says the arbitrator is to determine if the agreement is enforceable, then under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), the arbitrator will make that decision and you cannot go to court. Justice Scalia wrote for the 5 justices that prevailed saying if the challenge was just to a particular part of the agreement rather than the whole, then a court could decide. So if one claimed just part of the agreement was unenforceable a court could decide, but if you claimed the whole agreement was unenforceable the arbitrator got to decide? Interesting!

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for what some have called the people side of the court dissented and criticized the majority for adopting a position not proposed by either party during briefing or oral arguments. From a legal standpoint it is nearly unheard of for the court to make a decision on an issue or facts not raised by either side. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, joined in the dissent.

The lesson for all of us -- reinforced -- Don't sign an arbitration agreement unless you are sure you know what you are doing and understand it will probably cost you more to go to arbitration than to court.

By Gregory S. Cusimano

Docket No.:  09-497
Petitioner:  Rent-A-Center West, Inc.
Respondent:  Antonio Jackson
Decided By:  Roberts Court (2009-2010 )
Opinion:  561 U.S. ___ (2010)
Granted:  Friday, January 15, 2010
Argued:  Monday, April 26, 2010
Decided:  Monday, June 21, 2010

Should we be concerned with current gas containers?
by Gregory S, Cusimano

Howard Dawn poured gasoline into the tank of his lawn mower, placed the cap on the gas container spout and placed it in the middle of a nearby outdoor table in his yard. 

Jimmy, his 4 year old son, playing in the backyard, somehow picked up the gas container, the cap came off and Jimmy dragged the container into the open garage. When Howard saw Jimmy and the gas container lying on the floor in a puddle of gasoline, he ran and grabbed Jimmy. 

As he did the gasoline vapors caught on fire and the gas container exploded, engulfing them in flames, severely burning Jimmy and Howard. How could that be? What could have ignited the gasoline? Why would the plastic container explode?

It's spring, we all love being outside, working in the yard, smelling fresh cut grass enjoying Alabama's new growth of azaleas. We can be close to tragedy without ever knowing it. If you have a weed eater, lawn mower or gasoline blower, you are likely to have a cheap red plastic gasoline container. Now we know that something we think is simple and cheap would not explode like dynamite engulfing us or our children in flames. Right? Wrong! Children and family members have been devastatingly burned by these yard bombs. Fumes can ignite from hidden sources and the fire re-enters the containers which explode. We never would have guessed how easily the fumes can ignite. A pilot light, light switch, an open flame or even static electricity can start the fire.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) just last year finally required plastic gas cans or containers to have safety caps which are resistant to being open easily by children. Although overdue, it was a good step.

Continue reading "Alabama Consumers Beware of Exploding Plastic Gas Containers" »

Fumes Ignite Re-Enter Gas Container and Explode!

Do you have a plastic gas container you use? I'll bet it doesn't have a fire safety shield. For well over 100 years gas cans for gas storage were known to be equipped with safety shields - a simple mesh filter that keeps ignited fumes from going back into the container and exploding injuring and killing people. Once big box stores started buying and selling things for the cheapest prices possible makers of gas containers started using plastics and chose to sell the containers without the simple safety shield.

Since then many have been injured and killed by fires and explosions that could have been prevented if a simple safety shield costing pennies had been included. Fumes Ignite Re-Enter Gas Container and Explode!

Do you have a plastic gas container you use? I'll bet it doesn't have a fire safety shield. For well over 100 years gas cans for gas storage were known to be equipped with safety shields - a simple mesh filter that keeps ignited fumes from going back into the container and exploding injuring and killing people. Once big box stores started buying and selling things for the cheapest prices possible makers of gas containers started using plastics and chose to sell the containers without the simple safety shield.

Since then many have been injured and killed by fires and explosions that could have been prevented if a simple safety shield costing pennies had been included.

Some people throughout the United States have received excess radiation as a result of medical imaging. Many of the scanners were GE machines. A case has been filed by our firm and others to create a medical monitoring fund to provide annual or semi-annual testing. The testing will (1) provide earlier detection of cancerous tumors resulting from the radiation; and (2) provide early detection to allow quick and decisive treatment.

GE has asked the Court to dismiss the case and is claiming that the patients' hair loss and subcellular damage are not a "present injury."

Hearing will be held in Washington D.C. this week concerning the safety and safeguards that can or should be implemented. Patients are hopeful that the hearings scheduled to be held tomorrow by the Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health) will ask substantive questions regarding the safeguards that GE, and other CT manufacturers, have failed to include in their machines which would have ensured patient safety and eliminated this unnecessary risk. We further hope that the Committee will uncover why it has taken the overexposure of hundreds of patients to garner the industry's attention to this serious public health matter.

It has now been discovered that patients in Missouri have suffered exposure as well as patients in Alabama and California. The patients exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in Springfield, Missouri are appears to be another example of the industry's disregard for patient safety.

The law firms representing patients are Cusimano, Keener, Roberts, Knowles & Raley, LLC, Gadsden, Alabama, Watson, McKinney & Artrip, LLP, Huntsville Al, and Owen, Patterson & Owen in CA. Those wishing further information about the law suit may contact lawyers in those firms.