|
Lawrence Kamin Wins Severe Burn Injury Claim Jury Agrees: Government Safety Standards a Non-Issue Principal Attorneys Charles Risch John Monical Situation A young child (the “Plaintiff”) suffered severe, life debilitating injuries in a small fire localized around his play yard. The Plaintiff sued the play yard manufacturer (the “Manufacturer”), alleging that the play yard burned too quickly because its pad was made of non-flame retardant polyurethane foam. Challenge A severely injured child always elicits a great deal of sympathy from a jury. In this case, the Manufacturer had made two versions of the play yard. One version was sold in California, which prohibited non-flame retardant foam in children’s products. The other version was sold across the country in all other states, none of which imposed the same restriction. Although the fire in this case occurred in South Dakota, the Plaintiff argued that the play yard in South Dakota was unreasonably dangerous because safer versions were sold in California. Solution Lawrence Kamin set out to prove to the jury that compliance with the California standard would not have made the product safer. First, we presented witnesses from the Manufacturer who had tested and found no difference in the burn rates of the California and non-California versions of the product. Through our research, we found that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) had considered, but rejected the adoption of the California standard at the federal level. We located a former CPSC engineer who had studied the standard. He testified that the CPSC rejected the standard because in some product configurations, the use of flame retardant foam made no difference and whether there were other, potentially dangerous health and environmental effects of using flame-retardants was unknown. Finally, we presented the jury with a visual demonstration. We hired an expert witness to perform and videotape actual tests of the product with and without flame retardant foam. We showed the jury these tests – two products, one with and one without flame retardant foam, each burning side by side at the same rate. Outcome After a grueling three-week trial, the jury awarded a defense verdict in favor of the Manufacturer. They found no difference between the California and non-California versions of the product. Lessons Applied Take nothing for granted. In this case, the government safety standard did not make the product safer. The standard itself was an obstacle to presenting the truth. |
