Products Liability Lawyers Austin and Dallas – Cases

Selected Products Liability Case Profiles
Following are summaries of recent or current cases litigated by the Slack & Davis products liability lawyers. Recoveries were made on behalf of:

  • Five members of a Dallas family, who were driving to Colorado for a baseball tournament and brief vacation. While traveling on a rural, two-lane road, the tread of the left rear tire separated from the tire and wrapped around the axle so tightly, the emergency brake cable engaged, locking  the wheel  and  ultimately causing the vehicle to roll over several times and land on its roof. One child died as a result this crash. Other family members suffered numerous traumatic injuries. Slack & Davis represented the surviving family members in their claim that the crash was caused by a defective tire that was manufactured in Taiwan and sold in Dallas by a U.S. distributor. This case was settled for a confidential amount.
  • A Northeast Texas man, who was driving an all-terrain vehicle or “ATV” in his backyard when the throttle control became stuck in the open throttle position. The ATV traveled out-of-control along a barbed wire fence and hit a tree. He sustained severe injuries which resulted in his death. Slack & Davis represented the man’s family and alleged that the ATV’s throttle system was defectively designed and manufactured. This case was settled for a confidential amount after jury selection.
  • A woman who was killed in a relatively minor collision. Defects in her car’s automatic passive shoulder belt system caused massive internal injuries.
  • An amputee who sustained serious injuries during a fall that was caused by a defective prosthetic device. The prosthesis, which was attached below his left knee, failed when the locking pin unexpectedly detached from the liner. When the prosthesis came off, our client fell, landing on his knee and cracking his femur. This led to surgery and painful rehabilitation.
  • A four-year-old boy who was rendered a paraplegic as a result of a car wreck. The child was restrained with lap and shoulder belts in the left rear seat. During the collision, because of poor fit of the shoulder/lap belt restraint system and seat, the boy’s body rotated out of the shoulder restraint and jackknifed violently over the lap and shoulder belts. Slack & Davis attorneys argued that the seat belts were not designed to safely restrain and protect children who have outgrown child safety seats.
  • A quadriplegic injured in an SUV rollover. This lawsuit was filed 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.

back to top

  • A man who suffered a head injury in a collision, due to defective minivan door latches that flew open and caused him to be ejected from the vehicle.
  • A child who died in an accident involving a household appliance.
  • Our client who 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.
  • Plaintiffs who had 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.
  • A woman, 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.
  • A man who suffered a closed head injury when his car’s seat back failed in a rear end collision, causing his head to strike against the roof of the car.
  • A client who experienced eye injuries due to an exploding water softener.
    Parents of a baby boy whose car seat failed 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.

back to top

 

If you or someone you know have suffered serious injuries due to defective or poorly designed products, please contact our office to speak to a product liability attorney.