On April 5th, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a warning to consumers about the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play after another infant death, the tenth tragedy in less than 4 years.
The statement warns that infants aged 3 months or older, who are able to roll over while seated unrestrained in the Fisher-Price sleep, will be able to turn to their stomach or on their side and suffocate. CPSC recommends consumers to stop using the product when the infant is three months of age, or as soon as an infant exhibits rollover capabilities.
Needless to say, additional steps must be taken to reach as many consumers as possible. Many parents will continue to use the product unless Fisher-Price reaches out to or attempts to reach out to all of them.
It has now been two months since the horrific death of 9-month old Zachary Jackson. In the afternoon of July 17, 2018, Zachary was found unresponsive inside the home of Joseph and Debbie Dodd. Earlier that day, Zachary’s mom had dropped her infant at the Dodd Family Daycare, in Clermont, Florida. That was the last time she saw him alive. At 4:22 p.m., when Zachary was discovered, he was in a car seat, blue, and unresponsive.
Take for example a case our law firm recently resolved involving a negligently maintained bathtub surface at a Days Inn hotel. Our client turned on the water, took one step onto the tub surface, and slipped immediately, resulting in a significant hip fracture. Our client reported to us that the shower surface was so slippery it felt like she stepped onto ice. She explained that the anti-slip coating on the surface appeared to be excessively worn and neglected. By the time the client contacted us, weeks had already passed, and the bathtub surface remained in service for other guests. Under the law, we would not be able to arrange an expert inspection of the tub until a lawsuit was filed. Accordingly, we refused to delay by trying to resolve the case without litigation. We immediately filed our lawsuit and, with the lawsuit, served on the hotel a Notice of Inspection for the earliest possible date the rules of procedure allowed. Later, when the hotel’s attorneys asked to postpone the unilaterally scheduled inspection, we respectfully declined in the interest of our client. The inspection proceeded just weeks after we were retained, and our expert engineer confirmed the hotel’s failure to comply with industry standards for slip resistance. The most crucial evidence in the case was preserved, and the hotel ultimately settled with our client for $675,000. Had we not aggressively pursued an immediate inspection, the hotel would have had a valid argument that a later inspection would not be representative of the conditions at the time of our client’s fall due to “months and months” of continued wear and tear by continued use, scrubbing, cleaning solutions, and so on.
