Philadelphia Top Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I handle many cases of auto accidents. In the majority of auto accident cases, one or both drivers caused the crash by negligently failing to pay attention or make good decisions. But every now and then, a case comes along in which the fault lies with the automobile itself, or one of its parts -- which means real responsibility for the crash can be assigned to the company that made the defective part. That was the allegation in Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp., a decision from the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Peggy Bender of Alabama alleged that a defective airbag in a Miata caused the death of a family member. Mazda attempted to remove the case to federal court on diversity grounds, but the federal court denied the motion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. In this ruling, the Eleventh says an intervening decision did not change its mind.

For federal courts to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount of money being asked for must exceed $75,000. In opposing the motion to remove the case, Bender alleged that there was no evidence that the amount in controversy reached that much. In its answer, Mazda cited a similar case, Roe v. Michelin North America, in which the federal court found that even if the amount in controversy was not pleaded in court, it was "clear" and "readily deductible" that it would exceed $75,000. Mazda asked the district court to follow this ruling, or in the alternative, stay the case until an Eleventh Circuit ruling in Roe. The district court denied this and moved the case back to state court. After the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Roe, which ultimately stayed in the federal courts, Mazda moved in district court to reconsider in light of the new decision. The district court denied this on the grounds that the case was out of its hands, remanded back to state court. Mazda appealed.

Before the Eleventh Circuit, Mazda argued that under a 1987 Eleventh Circuit case, Ritter v. Smith, the district court should have granted its motion to bring the case back to federal court. Bender counter-argued with another Eleventh Circuit case, 1992's Harris v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama. The Eleventh found Harris most persuasive. That case cited 28 USC sec. 1447, which says in part that orders to remand are not reviewable on appeal or otherwise. In Harris, the Eleventh expressly found that district courts may not review their own remand orders. This trumps the motion to reconsider filed by Mazda, the appeals court found. The appeals court further found that the outcome of Roe did not matter in this case. Even if the remand to state court was legally erroneous, it said, review by the district court or the Eleventh Circuit is still barred by sec. 1447: "The case has been removed to state court, and that is where it will stay." Thus, it affirmed the district court's refusal to reconsider.

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I am familiar with cases in which large, well-funded companies pull out all the legal stops to avoid liability. This is common because large companies generally have the money to fight cases all the way up to federal appeals courts, when necessary. Because facing legal liability can be very expensive in the long run -- and because fighting a case in appeals courts is expensive for individual litigants like Bender -- it actually does make sense for defendants with a lot of funding to fight small issues to death. This tactic does not give defendants a better argument on the facts, of course -- it helps defendants dodge legal liability by removing facts from consideration.

Continue reading "Court Rules Wrongful Death Case Involving Defective Car Allegations Belongs in State Court - Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp." »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was saddened to read about a ruling against a family struggling with a serious brain injury. In Covell v. Bell Sports Inc., David W. and Margaret Covell of Philadelphia sued a helmet manufacturer on behalf of their adult son, David F. Covell. The younger David Covell was riding a bicycle to his job as a schoolteacher when he was hit by a car at the entrance to the school's parking lot. He suffered such serious brain injuries that he is now disabled and his parents have been appointed as his legal guardians. On his behalf, they sued Bell Sports, the maker of his bicycle helmet, alleging that it was defectively designed and defectively failed to warn users about the risks of a blow from the edge of the helmet.

The appeal turned in part on the instructions given to the jury. Many states use a privately published standard called the Restatement of Torts, a collection of caselaw that states can voluntarily adopt in order to keep current with new decisions. Pennsylvania uses the Second Restatement of Torts, which was published in the 1950s. However, the law on products liability -- the cause of action in the Covells' case -- has seen so many changes since then that a Third Restatement of Torts: Products Liability was published in the 1990s. Importantly for this case, the Third Restatement allows manufacturers to defend themselves by arguing that their products meet applicable standards. Pennsylvania has not formally approved the Third Restatement, but the judge in the Covells' trial instructed the jury according to the Third Restatement.

On appeal, the Covells argued that the judge should not have used the Third Restatement, since it has not been adopted in Pennsylvania, and that federal safety standards for bicycle helmets were in any case inadmissible. The Third Circuit disagreed on both counts. In 2009, the Third decided in Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing Inc. that Pennsylvania will eventually apply the Third Restatement, making that the correct standard. It declined to overturn that, dismissing an argument the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's dismissal of a relevant case means it does not intend to take up the Third Restatement. The Third then addressed the Covells' other argument, that federal bicycle helmet standards used at trial are not admissible because they are not described in the admissible portions of the Third Restatement. Again, it disagreed, saying that the federal standards described issues like testing and labels that are within the admitted part of the Third Restatement. Thus, it affirmed the district court's judgment and ended the Covells' case.

At oral arguments in this case, the Legal Intelligencer reported, Third Circuit judges acknowledged that the situation is not at all settled for Pennsylvanians involved in products liability cases. That's why, as a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I would be very interested in clear input from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to adopt or not adopt new standards, but the Third did it in Berrier because the state high court expressly declined to. Thus, it's possible that the court will ultimately come to the opposite conclusion, which would mean the Covells could have won their case if they had brought it later.

Continue reading "Court Did Not Err in Ruling Against Philadelphia Family in Defective Helmet Case - Covell v. Bell Sports Inc." »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was disappointed to see a recent federal appeals court ruling denying an injured man a chance to pursue fair compensation from the company he says is to blame. In Roth v. Noralfco, David Roth sued a chemical supply company for various causes of action claiming it had a duty to design safer acid tank cars. Roth had a job at a York, Penn. paper company that included unloading tanks of sulfuric acid sent by Noralfco by rail. He suffered chemical burns to his face in 2004 when he attempted to unload a tank that was under pressure. The federal trial court granted summary judgment to Noralfco, saying the bulk of the claims are expressly preempted by the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

The HMTA regulates interstate commerce involving hazardous materials, giving buyers and sellers uniform regulations even between states. A section of the HMTA explicitly says that "Unless authorized by another law of the United States, a law... of a State... that is not substantively the same as a provision of this chapter... is preempted." It then goes on to list the areas of regulation that are preempted, which include what is a hazardous material, how the materials are packed and labeled, their shipping documents, notice of any spills and their shipping containers. The Third Circuit found that all of Roth's tort claims fall under the HMTA's purview, and were thus expressly preempted by the law. It dismissed Roth's arguments that his job was not "in commerce" and thus the HMTA did not apply, saying unloading is expressly part of the HMTA. Thus, it upheld the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Noralfco.

This decision is disappointing, because it means Roth cannot pursue compensation for what sound like some very serious injuries. In making this ruling, the Third Circuit did not rule on the merits of the case; it simply said there was no case because federal law has taken away the state-law remedy available to him. This leaves Roth and anyone else involved in shipping hazardous materials without recourse if they happen to be injured by dangerous materials like sulfuric acid while they are at work. As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I believe our society can and should do better for the people who do this kind of dangerous job and rely on supervisors, colleagues or suppliers to stay safe.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Rules Workplace Accident Lawsuit Preempted by Federal Law - Roth v. Noralfco" »

A bill was announced in Washington D.C. last December that would fine merchants who knowingly sell defective, recalled toys and would ban their use in day care facilities next year. Defective toys and dangerous toys are often the cause of injury to children and, in some cases, can also result in death.

The new bill aims to help reduce the number of defective toy injuries in children in Washington D.C., and throughout the country. The bill was announced by Brian Moran under the name Del. Brian Moran's Toy Safety Act. At first, specifically, it would direct the common wealth of Virginia to develop standards for toys sold in Virginia stores. Bills like this could come to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Del. Moran stated that "no parent should worry about their child going to the emergency room because of a toy they received Christmas morning. The federal government has failed to provide needed protection for our families."

After the holidays and after children's birthdays, many injuries due to dangerous toys or defective products occur. If you feel that your child has become injured as a result of a defective toy, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer right away. In lieu of many government regulations currently in place to protect children from unsafe toys, a Philadelphia Injury lawyer is a best defense.

Recent concerns about elevated mineral oil levels contained in food packaging made of recycled cardboard have caused several food companies to begin testing and even changing their packaging.

Originating in Europe, this concern involves companies all over the world including the UK, Switzerland, and the United States. Some researchers feel that the elevated levels of mineral oil in recycled cardboard packaging could be transferring into the food that is packaged in it, leading to possible unsafe consumption levels of mineral oil for those in Philadelphia and around the world.

According to a recent BBC report, a scientist from Switzerland has suggested foods like pasta, rice and breakfast cereals might contain up to 100 times more mineral oil than the limit agreed for food safety.

According to the same BBC report, Dr. Koni Grob, who leads a government run food safety laboratory abroad says "exposure to mineral oils has been linked to inflammation of internal organs and cancer.

Neither the Foods Standards Agency in the UK nor the FDA in the United States has yet ruled on this issue. In the mean time, this is certainly one product safety issue people all over the world will want to keep an eye on. Philadelphia Injury lawyers not that If you feel that you been the victim of injury due to a product safety issue or have suffered wrongful injury, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer today.

Senator Charles Schumer has called for an investigation on the popular canvas shopping bags that have been offered by several grocery store chains in Philadelphia and throughout the US in recent years. The bags have been marketed as reusable environmentally friendly ways to carry groceries plastic free.

The investigation began this winter when Mr. Schumer became concerned about the levels of lead existing in the painted imprints that are often placed on the bags. Lead is known to cause lowered IQ in children and food contamination, a special concern given the bags frequent use for grocery shopping.

Senator Schumer is calling on the federal government to launch an investigation on the bags. Private investigative reports by the Tampa Tribune found "elevated levels of lead" in canvas bags offered by the Winn-Dixie, Wal-Mart, Sweetbay, Publix, and Target shopping chains. This situation is one of many concerning products manufactured in China which, due to poor quality, have been known to cause dangers to consumer health in recent years.

If you feel that your health has been put at risk by products, toys, or a home contaminated by high levels of lead, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer to find out what you may be able to do about it. A Philadelphia injury lawyer will be able to help you understand your rights and help you to obtain any reward you may be entitled to.

According to recent research out of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, emergency records show that at least 92 people have been hurt from playing the Nintendo Wii, a gaming system that encourages active participation in games via motion controlled game controllers.

Although the idea of a Philadelphia injury lawyer (or 20) getting involved in the regulation of videogames may seem absurd, statistics suggest that something needs to be done to protect players before more people get hurt. Complaints that places like Children's Hospital of Philadelphia have witnessed include: cuts and bruises, foot and ankle injuries, shoulder dislocations, bystander injuries (for instance, someone getting hit in the face with a Wii remote wielded by another player), repetitive stress injuries from spending too much time playing games, and other hand and wrist injuries.

One famous Nintendo Wii accident clip shows a kid swinging a Wii baseball bat - accidentally losing his grip and hurling the bat into a large TV, shattering the screen.

If you or someone you care about has been injured playing a video game or using essentially any product or toy - your Philadelphia accident lawyer will investigate to determine whether the company that made or designed the product was in some respect negligent or careless. In some cases, the company may not be to blame - rather the individuals involved in the activity might be to blame. For instance, if a bunch of college kids start playing the Wii while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and then get rowdy - and then one accidentally smashes his friend in the nose with a Wii baseball bat and breaks his nose - the Nintendo Company probably couldn't be held liable for the damage... but the negligent, drunk individual might be liable.

In other words, product liability and injury cases can get quite complicated. Most people understand that a case taken on by a Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyer -- for instance, suing an oncologist for making an incomplete diagnosis -- will be complicated. But every injury case takes effort, strategy and investigation to put together.

Continue reading "Dozens of Philadelphia Injuries from Nintendo Use. Is an Epidemic Brewing?" »

In a personal injury product liability verdict that product safety advocates hope will spark government restrictions on defective Chinese drywall, a Florida jury awarded a Miami couple $2.4 million in damages last week. It was the first of what promises to be many product liability suits in Philadelphia and across the nation targeting defective drywall produced in China and sold in the United States. U.S. drywall distributor Banner Supply Co. which supplied the drywall purchased and installed by the Florida couple has been named in thousands of similar product liability lawsuits involving defective Chinese drywall.

According to reports, the Florida couple installed Chinese-manufactured drywall supplied by Banner Supply Co. in their Miami home. Shortly thereafter, the couple was forced to vacate their dream home because of the foul odor and noxious fumes emitted by the drywall. Chinese-manufactured drywall has come under investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Testing at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California revealed that some Chinese drywall brands emit as much as 100 times more hydrogen sulfide than U.S.-produced drywall. CPSC investigations of more than 3,300 complaints about Chinese drywall have attributed hydrogen sulfide emissions to corrosion of appliances, air conditioning coils and other metals. The drywall with the highest level of hydrogen sulfide emissions was produced in China four to five years ago.

Thousands of homeowners in Philadelphia and across the country may be affected by the defective drywall. In typical experience, homeowner claims to insurance companies have been denied. Many builders and rehabbers have refused to respond to consumer complaints. Only one Chinese company, Knauf Plasterboard Tinanjin, has even acknowledged U.S. complaints. Frustrated homeowners are turning to Philadelphia personal injury lawyers to assert their product liability claims, recoup their losses and force replacement of this noxious, defective product in their homes.

If you believe you are the victim of defective Chinese drywall, contact a Philadelphia defective product attorney today about your rights.

Toyota, now facing more than 327 defective product and personal injury lawsuits in the U.S., is not the only automobile manufacturer placing Philadelphia drivers are risk. Chrysler has just recalled in excess of 600,000 vehicles in Philadelphia and across the country, including all Jeep Wranglers manufactured from 2008 to 2010. Three different safety recalls that have the potential to cause car accidents resulting in serious personal injury target defective brakes, defective doors and defective accelerator pedals in various Chrysler models.

• A brake defect on Chrysler's Jeep Wranglers causes excessive wear on brake tubes that can cause brakes to leak and lose power.
• A defective wire harness in the sliding doors of Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans can wear through and catch fire.
• Echoing Toyota's problems, sticky accelerator pedals on Dodge Caliber and Jeep Compass crossovers can cause unexpected acceleration.

Toyota's dismal response to auto safety issues and the legal fallout precipitated by the company's failure to act responsibly about defective products appears to be driving a surge in proactive auto recalls, although heightened government oversight certainly plays a role. In issuing the recent recalls, Chrysler noted that it had received no reports of accidents or personal injuries related to the product defects,

Chrysler is not alone in increasing product liability oversight. GM last week recalled 1.5 million vehicles in Philadelphia and worldwide to fix a defective heated windshield-wiper fluid system that could catch fire. Five fires have been reported in GM vehicles that include the defective wiper system. Toyota also continues to experience problems, recently recalling 3,600 Lexus LS sedans sold in Philadelphia and other U.S. cities because of a defective steering system.

If you own an automobile involved in a recall, see your Philadelphia auto dealers promptly for recall repairs. If you are involved in a Philadelphia car accident, talk to a Philadelphia personal injury attorney about your rights. Defective auto parts often cause or contribute to vehicle accidents.

The Washington state maker of a popular defibrillator used for first aid by many Philadelphia businesses, manufacturers and emergency response teams has recalled more than 12,000 automated external defibrillators. Generally included in the equipment carried by EMT vehicles, portable defibrillators are a relatively recent addition to the first aid equipment installed on manufacturing plant floors, in doctor's offices, at recreational centers and swimming pools and in corporate and business settings. Portable defibrillators are also often carried with traditional first aid kits in police cars.

When an individual's heart stops beating, a defibrillator will often be used to "shock" the heart with an electronic burst that, hopefully, will start the heart beating again. According to the recall statement issued by Cardiac Science of Bothell, Washington, the recalled defibrillators "may not be able to deliver therapy during a resuscitation attempt, which may lead to serious adverse events or death." In plain language, the defective defibrillators won't generate enough juice to restart the heart.

The recall of Cardiac Science defibrillators involves devices manufactured or serviced between October 19, 2009 and January 15, 2010. According to news reports, the product defect was discovered by Cardiac Science quality control measures. The company says it has not received any complaints or reports of malfunctions in the field. However, Philadelphia personal injury attorneys point out that if a person failed to be revived with use of a defective defibrillator, the failure might be attributed to fate, not a defective product malfunction, particularly if the individual rendering first aid has no formal medical training. Since this is one of the express purposes for which the defibrillators are marketed -- i.e., the provision of first aid by average citizens in commercial and residential emergencies -- a product defect of this nature could make the manufacturer liable for personal injuries or death that might occur from use of this medical device.

Food and Drug Administration investigators have traced the E. coli outbreak that has sickened scores of people in the Midwest to romaine lettuce sold by Freshway Foods of Sidney, Ohio. Yesterday, Freshway Foods issued a recall of romaine lettuce sold in 23 states from the Atlantic coast to Kansas, including Pennsylvania. Freshway Foods sells pre-cut salad mixes, fruits and vegetables to restaurants, food service outlets, wholesale and in-store salad bars. A number of the people who recently suffered personal injury illness caused by ingesting E. coli contaminated lettuce had eaten at local grocery store deli salad bars. However, the FDA reassured Philadelphia consumers that the recalled lettuce is not sold as a retail product directly to consumers so the recall does not affect bagged or fresh lettuce purchased in Philadelphia grocery stores. The FDA is still investigating the source of E. coli contamination. It is not yet known if contamination occurred during lettuce processing, transport to the processing plant or during cultivation on the farm. Freshway Foods contracts with multiple lettuce suppliers.

This most recent E. coli personal injury outbreak has public health experts criticizing food safety procedures. Critics charge that inadequate testing has led to an unprecedented number of food-borne personal injury illness incidents in recent years. In the wake of recent E. coli contamination of beef products, Wal-Mart last week announced that it will now require its beef suppliers to test for additional contaminants beyond testing required by the FDA.

E. coli causes severe diarrhea and abdominal cramping that often necessitate hospitalization. While most healthy adults recover within a week but E. coli can kill. Children are particularly vulnerable. The current E. coli outbreak involves a rare and particularly toxic strain of the bacteria that is not included in standard food safety tests. If you are concerned that you may have been infected with E. coli from tainted lettuce, contact a Philadelphia personal injury attorney about your rights.

Philadelphia parents are understandably upset and confused by this week's sudden defective product recall of the pain and fever medications most used by parents, doctors and hospitals to treat children when they become ill. Over the weekend pharmaceutical behemoth Johnson & Johnson, Inc. announced a voluntary recall of infant and children's liquid Tylenol and Motrin, two of the country's most popular children's pain relievers. Other drugs the company markets for children and infants, including infant and children's Zyrtec and Benadryl, popular allergy medications, were also recalled. (Click here for more information from the drug manufacturer.)

According to information released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in issuing the recall Johnson & Johnson cited manufacturing deficiencies that could affect the quality, purity or potency of the children's drugs involved. In a press release, Johnson & Johnson warned parents in Philadelphia and across the U.S. that the recalled drugs may contain higher concentrations of active ingredients than is specified on the package. Inactive ingredients that failed to meet Johnson & Johnson's internal quality control standards may also be evident in recalled medications. Some recalled children's medications may also contain tiny particles, the press release noted, although the content of those particles was not revealed.

The FDA said that so far it has not received any reports of children getting sick or dying from the tainted medications. However, doctors and Philadelphia personal injury lawyers warned parents to watch for and immediately report to their pediatrician or a hospital any worrisome symptoms, including rash, diarrhea or vomiting. If you suspect that your child has become ill or been made sicker from using one of the recalled drugs, contact an experienced Philadelphia personal injury attorney for a free case evaluation. The FDA said that parents can safely use generic versions of the recalled drugs, but reminded parents to carefully check for correct dosage amounts when switching drugs.

What is your hand worth? Is your right hand worth more than your left hand? You can function with one hand, but what if you earn your living by typing on a computer keyboard? Can you still provide for your family if you only have the use of one hand? Will your employer fire you if you can't produce at the same rate as someone with two functioning hands? No one in Philadelphia likes to think about these things, but people lose a hand or the use of a hand or other body part every day in tragic construction accidents, car accidents, truck accidents and motorcycle accidents.

Insurance companies that insure Philadelphia businesses and residents spend thousands of hours pouring over statistics to arrive at the cost of a limb or an eye or a person's ability to sit or stand or walk. Using complicated calculations, insurance companies decide what they will pay the victim of a Philadelphia personal injury accident if the person loses a body part or the use of a limb or if he loses the ability to perform a basic human function such as walking.

Insurance companies tend to be one size fits all. Without a legal push, they are generally unwilling to factor in the importance of lost function to the individual and his family. Without a legal push, insurance companies are usually uninterested in how the loss will impact the individual's personal and family life. Without a legal push, they are often indifferent to how loss of use will affect an individual's ability to support himself and his family now and into the future. Experienced Philadelphia personal injury lawyers supply that push.

Philadelphia personal injury attorneys fight for the rights and needs of Philadelphia personal injury accident victims. If you are the victim of an accident, don't accept the insurance company's offered settlement without first talking to an experienced Philadelphia personal injury lawyer.

Philadelphia stores are removing bag-shaped baby slings from store shelves in response to a federal recall of more than 1 million Infantino manufactured baby slings. Baby slings sold in Philadelphia and other cities in the U.S. and Canada have been linked to severe personal injury risk for infants and implicated in at least 14 inadvertent infant suffocations, three last year. (See our March 19 post on infant sling personal injury risks.)

This week the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered the recall of the SlingRider and Wendy Bellissimo infant slings that are linked to the three infant deaths that occurred last year. Wendy Bellissimo baby slings were sold exclusively at Babies-R-Us, but the SlingRider infant carriers were sold at Wal-Mart, Target, Babies-R-Us and other stores in both the U.S. and Canada. According to the warning issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the defective product fabric slings can block a baby's breathing, resulting in suffocation. As the parent moves about while the baby is in the sling, it is also possible for the baby's chin to be forced against his chest, making it difficult for the infant to breathe and presenting a serious risk of personal injury or suffocation.

Baby slings have been used by various cultures for centuries. Designed properly, experts say infant slings provide a valuable connection between baby and parent. However, some experts say usage instructions included with infant slings may not be clear and that many parents are wearing slings incorrectly or using the slings with infants who are too young. Many slings are safe only for babies who are at least four months old and have developed a degree of muscle tone. When used with younger infants, these slings pose a severe risk to Philadelphia infants.

If you own a recalled baby sling, stop using it immediately. Contact a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer about personal injury and defective product law.

More than 500 children in Philadelphia and across the country have been strangled by window blind and window shade cords since 1980, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That's an average of one child death per month due to unsafe or defective window blinds or shades. In 2007, an Ohio woman found her 16-month old toddler dead in his crib. Wrapped around his neck was the cord of a window shade she had purchased specifically because the box was labeled safe for children. The child's mother is one of many bereaved parents angry with an industry that has failed to address a serious defective product issue, despite its tragic personal injury record.

According to a recent Associated Press investigation, redesigns and recalls in the window shade and window blind industry haven't changed fatality figures much. Records kept by the advocacy group Parents for Window Blind Safety shows an average 14 deaths per year between 1990 and 2000. The group is concerned, however, about a disturbing recent rise in the fatality rate of window blind and window shade personal injury accidents. Since 2008, fatalities have increased to 17 deaths per year.

Despite numerous personal injury problems and a rising child death rate in Philadelphia and across the U.S., federal agencies have failed to regulate safety standards for the window blind and window shade industry. Federal law prevents the Consumer Product Safety Commission from setting mandatory safety standards for products even if voluntary standards fail to provide a safe product. Often manufacturers do not remedy safety defects in their defective products until personal injury lawyers win high-priced settlements that cause them financial duress. The Ohio woman whose baby was strangled by a window shade cord sued the manufacturer and seller of the defective product and did win a high-priced settlement.

If you have experienced personal injury from a defective product, consult a Philadelphia personal injury attorney for a free case evaluation.