Following are summaries of recent or current cases litigated by Slack & Davis attorneys. In most cases, details of the case and recovery amounts are confidential, as required by the settlement agreement and State Bar of Texas advertising rules. Results depend on the facts and circumstances. Often, recoveries are limited to the amount of available insurance.

• Multiple recoveries on behalf of over 60 clients in claims related to the manufacture of faulty hip implants.
• Recovery for catastrophic injuries from a construction machine. Our lawsuit contended that the manufacturer should have designed the machine to prevent injuries.
• Recovery for injuries due to defective door latches. Our client suffered head injuries in a collision, due to defective minivan door latches that flew open and caused him to be ejected from the vehicle.
• Recovery for injuries suffered by a quadriplegic in SUV rollover. This lawsuit was against the SUV's retailer who sold our client the car without the federally required warning label. In addition, our client previously had obtained a recovery from the driver's insurance carrier, and a recovery from the manufacturer sufficient to secure his lifetime needs.
• Recovery for loss of fingers in manufacturing machine. Our client lost eight fingers in a pulley, while operating a machine that manufactured cement blocks. Our lawsuit contended that the manufacturer should have designed the machine with a safety guard around the pulley.
• Recovery for death of child in household appliance.
• Recovery for injuries from fire in rented recreational vehicle. The plaintiffs rented an R.V. for an overnight hunting trip. As they were driving home, the R.V. suddenly exploded in flames, resulting in burn injuries to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit was filed against the manufacturer, owner, and lessor of the vehicle.
• Recovery for head injuries due to failure of rear window. Our client was a rear passenger in a sedan; when the car was struck during a crash, she was ejected out the back window. She suffered permanent brain damage. The claim asserted that the car manufacturer was liable because of its failure to use laminated glass in the back window.
• Recovery for head injury due to seat back failure. Our client suffered a closed head injury when the car's seat back failed in a rear end collision, causing his head to strike against the roof of the car.
• Recovery for eye injuries due to exploding water softener.
• Recovery on behalf of a baby boy and his parents after his car seat failed to protect him in a crash. Although the collision was relatively minor, the child's skull was crushed and he received brain injuries. Slack & Davis argued that the seat was improperly designed to protect children in a side-impact collision. Although a large percentage of collisions are side-impact, most manufacturers do not test their seats' performance in this type of crash because the government doesn't require it.

If you have questions about serious injuries caused by defective or poorly designed products, please contact our office. If you are an attorney, please inquire here.