Case Results: Products Liability
The following are examples of Bradley & Gmelich’s case results in matters involving Product Liability.
Zaman v. Zenetti
FACTS: The plaintiff purchased a set of aftermarket wheels for his 2008 Range Rover Sport from the defendant through a third party retail store. Plaintiff’s purchase contract was with the third party retail store and not with the defendant. The third party retail store installed the wheels but failed to use the proper sized lug nuts. As a result, the Range Rover sustained extensive property damage. Initial demand was over $23,000.
RESULT: Case settled for $500.
Sophia Potter v. Peter Polos, et al.
FACTS: Plaintiff, age 4, was at the residence of defendants for a play date with defendants’ son. While outside the presence of adults, the two children were playing on a treadmill. The plaintiff fell onto the moving belt of the treadmill and was thrown against the wall directly behind the treadmill with her face wedged into the rotating belt as she was pinned against the wall. Plaintiff argued that defendant L.A. Gym Equipment Company was negligent in improperly installing the treadmill too close to the wall so that a dangerous condition existed. The initial demand was $3 million in damages.
RESULT: Plaintiff settled with the Polos’ for $1 million. L.A. Gym offered to settle for $350,000, but the offer was rejected by Plaintiff. The case went to trial and the jury found no liability on the part of defendant L.A. Gym. A defense verdict was successfully obtained.
Gonzalez v. Amada American, Inc. and Frontier Industrial Machinery Corp.
FACTS: The plaintiff was operating an overhead crane manufactured by the defendant and lifted a 500 pound metal tube. Plaintiff claims that the crane jerked up and down which caused the metal tube to disengage from the chain and fell onto Plaintiff’s hand severing Plaintiff’s right index and middle finger. Plaintiff alleged that the crane was defective and was claiming damages in excess of six figures for his stress, pain and suffering and loss of earnings.
RESULT: Case was dismissed.
Parlapiano vs. Rotarex, et al.
FACTS: Plaintiff sustained flash burns when a valve manufactured by co-defendant, Ceoduex, Inc., malfunctioned as Plaintiff was refilling propane tanks during the course and scope of his employment. The propane tanks were manufactured by Lite Cylinder and incorporated the Ceoduex valve. The initial demand was approximately $400,000.
RESULT: Case settled for $10,000, paid on behalf of Lite Cylinder; co-defendant, Ceoduex paid an additional $85,000.