A recent spate of consumer product recalls have spawned numerous legal actions. Some people want to know who really benefits from these actions, the consumers who bought dangerous products or the lawyers who file the cases?<\/p>\n
Philips recently recalled millions of defective CPAP machines<\/a> designed for people with sleep apnea.<\/p>\n The foam lining in these machines can disintegrate and the tiny particles can cause serious, and often fatal, lung injuries.<\/p>\n At roughly the same time, researchers discovered that Coppertone, Banana Boat, and Neutrogena sunscreens<\/a> all contained high levels of benzene, a chemical that causes cancer. In response, Johnson & Johnson recalled these products.<\/p>\n Adding to this hit parade, Peloton<\/a>, which is dealing with diminished sales and an SEC investigation, recalled over 100,000 treadmills after a product defect killed a half-dozen users.<\/p>\n Several dozen legal actions have been filed against Philips and Johnson & Johnson with more on the way. But Peloton is only facing one consumer class action lawsuit.<\/p>\n One reason attorneys file legal actions in these situations is to ensure that victims have their day in court. If no one speaks up for them, their stories usually either get lost in the shuffle or, more commonly, spun in unfavorable ways.<\/p>\n The infamous McDonald\u2019s hot coffee case<\/a> is a good example. We are approaching the 30th anniversary of Liebeck v. McDonald\u2019s Restaurants<\/em>.<\/p>\n According to one-sided media reports, Ms. Liebeck spilled hot coffee on her lap and won $2.9 million. That\u2019s only part of the story.<\/p>\n The coffee\u2019s temperature was a little over 200 degrees.<\/p>\n That\u2019s just short of boiling and significantly hotter than the industry standard at the time. On top of that, prior to this incident, McDonald\u2019s had received almost 1,000 complaints about the coffee\u2019s temperature and had done nothing to remedy the situation.<\/p>\n Because of the high temperature, Ms. Liebeck suffered from third-degree burns to her inner thigh.<\/p>\n Readers with very strong stomachs can Google \u201cStella Liebeck injuries\u201d and see the gruesome photos of the injuries this 79-year-old woman sustained.<\/p>\n As for the damages, $2.9 million was one day of coffee sales for the fast-food giant. Most people would consider that a reasonable amount of punitive damages, given the above facts.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the judge reduced the damages to $640,000 and the case later settled for an undisclosed amount. Ms. Liebeck\u2019s daughter said the family spent most of the money on home healthcare for her mother.<\/p>\n If she hadn\u2019t filed a lawsuit, no one would have ever heard her side of the story.<\/p>\n Instead, McDonald\u2019s would have portrayed her as a symbol of a system that supposedly was weighed against rich companies.<\/p>\n Product recalls themselves make people safer.<\/p>\n They pull dangerous products off the shelves. So, what\u2019s the point of a company paying millions or billions of dollars?<\/p>\n For many companies, a product recall is just a line item on a balance sheet.<\/p>\n There is no real money to pay. The Food and Drug Administration can pressure companies to halt sales, but the agency usually cannot fine these companies.<\/p>\n Punitive damages, on the other hand, send a message to companies who only speak the language of money.<\/p>\n If companies must pay eye-popping amounts of money, they will think twice before they take shortcuts during the manufacturing process which could put consumers at risk.<\/p>\nYour Day in Court<\/h2>\n
Making People Safer<\/h2>\n