Central New York Injury Lawyer Blog

................. Your Central New York Injury Lawyer is still blogging on the topic of gun control (see my most recent post here). New York recently passed an assault rifle ban. Other states will follow. An argument against such laws I have been hearing recently is, "more people are killed in car accidents than by shootings, so why don't we ban cars?". In other words, what fools you are for banning assault rifles!

But the analogy fails, and this blog post will explain why.

What's the difference between banning automobiles and banning assault rifles? They both kill, they're both dangerous, and cars may even be more dangerous! So why ban assault rifles and not cars? Think about it! I bet you can guess. Don't give up!

Okay, so you gave up. Here's the answer in a single word: Utility.

I can explain this best by reference to New York products liability law (it's really the same in all states). The law uses something called a "risk-utility test" to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. Let's start with the premise that virtually every human invention --starting with the wheel -- carries with it some risk of harm. The "risk-utility test" weighs the harms against the benefits (also called "utility") of the product. The harms from the product are placed on one side of the imaginary scale, and the benefits or utility of the product is placed on the other side. If the scale tips to the "harms" side, then the product gets a thumbs down, i.e., it is deemed "unreasonably dangerous" and thus "defective", and the manufacturer is liable for the harms. By contrast, if the scale tips to the "utility" side, then the product gets a thumbs up and the manufacturer gets a free pass.

The test can be best understood by way of examples. So imagine a booby-trap invention designed for home windows. If an intruder tries to jimmy the window open -- boom! -- he's toast! On the "utility" side of the scale, the device thwarts burglaries. On the "harms" side of the scale, the device will almost certainly kill or seriously injure not only evil intruders, but also mischievous children, pranksters, or even homeowners who forget their key. The risk of harm outweighs the benefits, especially since there are other, less dangerous ways to prevent burglaries. Thumbs down!

You can do the test with any invention. Take an ageless invention, the kitchen knife. Harms: Can cut and injure people, and can be used as a weapon in domestic disputes. Utility: It is indispensable both in the kitchen and at the table for preparing and eating food. Nothing can really replace it. Thumbs up.

Now let's put automobiles and assault rifles to the test.

Automobiles
Harms: They kill and maim a lot of people.
Utility: Without cars our economy, our world, would screech to a halt. They are a necessity of modern life. The benefits clearly outweigh even the terrible harm they cause.

Assault rifles
Harms: Crazed shooters inevitably get their hands on them and commit rapid-fire mass murder in our schools, movies houses, and college campuses before anyone has time to react or protect themselves.
Utility: Some sportsmen gain pleasure from shooting them at shooting ranges. They're "fun". But unlike automobiles, they are not necessary to our society or to our economy. And sportmen can also derive pleasure from shooting more traditional, and safer, guns. Thus, their utility is minimal, and their harm (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora) is great. Thumbs down!

So that's why, as I said in my last blog, assault rifles should be banned, or at least their manufacturers and vendors (who are making a "killing" on sales) should be held strictly liable to the victims of shooting sprees where such guns are employed.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central and Syracuse NY Personal Injury Lawyers
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Adam Gee, a friend and fellow New York personal injury lawyer, recently blogged about the newly enacted New York "assault rifle" ban. Adam is very knowledgeable about guns and about this new law. I can't claim to be knowledgeable about either, since I have never held a gun in my hand (except squirt guns) and have not read the new law. But what Adam appears to be saying is that upstanding citizens should have a right to own guns like those used in the Sandy Hook massacre, i.e., M-16 military style guns capable of killing a lot of people in a little time.

While I fully respect the rights of my fellow citizens to own and use guns designed for hunting and basic protection in their homes, I question the right to own military type rapid-fire guns. After all, you have to draw the line somewhere. The right to bear arms does not include, I don't think, the right to own nuclear bombs, fertilizer-truck bombs, grenade launchers or machine guns. Although the kind of M-16 style gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre did not go that far, still, where do you draw the line? I would draw it before the M-16 style weapon.

And I don't think such bans are unconstitutional. In District of Columbia v. Heller,, the Supreme Court found that reasonable prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession are consistent with the Second Amendment. And if you interpret the Second Amendment to mean that the government cannot ban any weapon, well, why can't I buy my first nuclear bomb at Amazon.com (as soon as I finish blogging)?

Banning such guns is not the only solution (although it's the best). I've got an alternative to an outright ban: A statute holding manufacturers and vendors of M-16 style guns (who are making a "killing" on sales) strictly liable to the victims of shooting sprees where those guns are employed.

Sounds pretty radical, but I think it's fair. The resulting lawsuits would push up the price of those guns as manufacturers pass the cost onto the consumers, making them less affordable and less prevalent. Consumers who nevertheless choose to exercise their "right" to own an M-16 style gun would end up shouldering the cost to society by financing victim payouts.

It's a win-win situation. Unless you happen to be a gun manufacturer, an assault rifle aficionado or a mass murderer. But the rest of us win. We're safer, our kids are safer. And don't feel too sorry for the gun manufacturers, who can still make and sell guns, nor for the sportsmen, who can still buy and use them. All I'm saying is, at the very least, the cost of having deadly mass-killing machines "out there" should be born by those who enjoy them or profit from them.

My two cents!

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyers
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Not long ago cars were death traps. Then Ralph Nader, a trial lawyer, wrote a best seller called, "Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile", published in 1965. The book detailed the resistance of the auto industry to investing in safety features, such as seat belts.

Then great trial lawyers brought a slew of products liability lawsuits against the auto manufacturers. The automobile industry responded by designing safer cars, featuring seat belts and then airbags, to avoid shelling out millions to mangled auto crash victims.

But the auto industry kept getting sued because lawyers kept arguing the vehicles could be made still safer, which spurred a leap-frogging of safer and safer designs. As a result, we now have side air bags, crash-resistant chassis, seat belt alarms, anti-lock brakes, etc.

Even in our modest little Central New York personal injury law firm, we have seen the investment returns on the auto industry's safer designs. We often marvel at how our clients walk away from mangled, squashed, twisted and bent vehicles whereas they would have been carried out, face shrouded, just a decade or so ago.

Yes, you can thank us personal injury lawyers for all these safety advances. If the auto industry could have managed a "hit and run", they would have driven away for all the human carnage they were unnecessarily causing. But we made them pay for it. Which made them think of ways of avoiding paying. Which made them improve safety.

And here's what's really interesting: The "end of history" of the auto safety evolution may be near. The ultimate goal, a perfectly safe car, may be just around the corner. Don't believe me? Take a look at this recent New York Times article and also watch this amazing video showing an"automated car" in action . It drives itself, automatically, avoiding obstacles, pedestrians, bicycles, etc., by using incredibly sophisticated sensors. The sensors also react perfectly to stop signs, red lights, construction zones, etc. The car drives on its own, without human input, and it drives perfectly.

Yes, this amazing technology appears poised to usher in an auto-accident-free world. This is as breathtaking as the discovery of a cure to cancer. And as marvelous.

Only one problem with all this. As marvelous as it is, it also means a significant amount of my "business" will disappear. Motor vehicle accidents represent about 20% of my case load.

There is some poetic justice in this. The auto industry for years claimed that New York personal injury and product liability lawyers like me would put them out of business with our lawsuits. But now their safety improvements, spurred by our lawsuits, may put us out of business.

I am not complaining. Like everyone else who hasn't been living under a rock, I have friends and relatives who have died or been seriously injured in car accidents. I have 5 children who drive or will be driving soon. I want them safe and I want their children's children safe.

If I never see another car accident case, and I have to shut my doors, I promise you I will say these words with a grateful smile: "Will you take fries with that . . . .?"

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central & Syracuse NY Motor Vehicle Accident Injury Lawyers
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Sometimes when I read the newspaper and see what greedy corporations are capable of, well, it makes me sick. This blog post is about a greedy corporation that literally made people sick.

The recent Meningitis outbreak you've been reading about is caused by contaminated spinal steroid injections. Many of my clients have had this type of steroid injection for back pain. A batch of steroid contaminated with a type of black mold called Exserohilum is causing the Meningitis. The manufacturer, "New England Compounding Center" in Framingham, Massachusetts caused the contamination by allowing dirty, sloppy conditions to prevail in the steroid production process

Cutting safety corners, in this case simple rules of hygiene, is always unacceptable, but when the product you are selling is getting injected into your customers' spines?! Come on!!

Now meet a few of the victims. A mother and daughter, the Liteskis, were featured in a New York Times article this week, titled, "Worried Sick: Meningitis Risk Haunts 14,000". They have both recently learned the steroid injections they received may be from the contaminated batch.

Now the Liteskis have to bite their nails while they wait out the "incubation period", which can be several months. If they turn out to be among the "lucky" ones, then the won't actually have to get sick and die. Instead, they will just have to fear and worry about death and serious illness for a few months. Boy, won't they be lucky!

As the article's title makes clear, they are "worried sick". The fear actually makes them sick! They feel that every new twinge of pain or headache is the onset of the deadly meningitis.

Yes, they will die a thousand deaths in these few months.

So far, 282 have contracted meningitis from the contaminated steroid injections and of those 23 have died. Do the math. If you get sick, you have about a one in 10 chance of dying from it. Those might be good odds for a horse race, but when you're betting on your life, not good enough.

Long ago our civilized society discarded the old eye-for-an-eye justice system. If that system were still in play, we would inject the spines of the CEO, the safety officer, and others at "New England Compounding Center", with the contaminated steroids. Then we would watch them squirm, just like the Liteskis.

No, we have moved beyond that form of justice. New York personal injury lawyers like me just ask juries for money to compensate, not revenge. And I hope the Liteskis get lost of it, even if they never get "sick" from the meningitis, but only from the fear and worry.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Yes, there actually is an annual "Wackiest Warning Label" contest, no kidding. This year's entries include:

• An electric razor that warns "never use while sleeping" (comment: I've heard of sleep walking, but sleep shaving?! Talk about light sleepers . . .)

• A decorative seven-inch globe that warns: "Globe should not be referred to for navigation" (comment: I'm hooking this baby onto my dash and tossing my GPS!)

• A Neck Pillow made specifically for children that warns: "Keep product away from infants and children." (comment: Huh?!)

• An electric skillet that warns: "Caution: griddle surface may be hot during and after cooking" (comment: Duh!)

The winner? We don't know yet.

The guy who started this contest 15 years ago did so, according to him, "to reveal the extraordinary lengths to which manufacturers who sell products in the United States must go to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits - and to start a national conversation about the need for reform".

Although I could not disagree with his reasoning more, I do enjoy a good laugh, and some of the warnings you see on products seem designed for nothing else. I remember a few years ago seeing a car sun shield that warned, "remove before driving". I have tried to re-create it in the photo above.

Yes, manufacturers can go too far, ridiculously far, in attempting to avoid liability by providing inane over-the-top warnings. BUT, the fact remains that 99% of all warnings, which New York consumer protection lawyers like yours truly have forced manufacturers to provide, save lives and prevent injury. So go ahead, laugh (and I'll laugh with you), but keep those warnings coming guys!

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Syracuse and Central NY Product Liability Lawyers
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

I always chuckle a bit when I read that a manufacturer or distributor is "voluntarily" recalling one of its products for safety concerns. From my perspective as a Central and Syracuse New York products liability lawyer, companies never "voluntarily" recall anything. In fact, left to their own devices, most corporations wouldn't even recall an exploding toy, as long as its sale is turning a profit.

Why not? Because a "corporation" is a legal creature designed for one sole purpose - to maximize profit. Nothing else matters. All that counts is the bottom line. Corporate boards are duty-bound to maximize their shareholder's dividends and share value, and morality is completely outside, even contrary, to their duty.

So why do manufacturers and distributors of dangerous or defective goods sometimes "voluntarily" recall them? Because they have no choice. They are required to report safety concerns about their products within a short period of time (days) subject to significant sanctions if they don't. Then, if they don't recall the product, the Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC), or a similar government safety agency, will start proceedings against them or simply "mandate" the recall. (The CPSC, by the way, is charged with protecting the public from injury or death from unreasonably dangerous consumer products.)

Beyond that, distributors and manufacturers of defective and dangerous products know that if their dangerous product hurts and kills people, those people and their families are going to hire product liability lawyers like me to sue their pants off. Continuing to sell dangerously defective consumer goods thus becomes more expensive than recalling them, which hurts their bottom line. And remember, the bottom line is all that matters to corporations.

So are recalls really "voluntary"? It's kind of like how you "voluntarily" pay your taxes. You do it "voluntarily" because you know there will be serious consequences if you don't.

If you or a member of your family has been injured or killed because of a dangerous consumer good, machine, drug or other product, just email or call me and we'll talk --- for free.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central and Syracuse NY Defective Product Lawyers
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

All metal hip implants, the newest line of artificial hips, are failing all over the U.S., the New York Times reported today. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has received more than 5,000 complaints since January about the "metal-on-metal" implants (both the artificial ball and cup are made of metal). As a result, many recipients of all-metal hips must undergo replacement surgery after only a few years (artificial hips should last about 15). Some patients have suffered injuries from minute pieces of chromium and cobalt shedding from the metal hips. In such cases pain, rashes and inflammation are common.

Hip replacement has come to be one of the most widely performed medical procedures in the United States. As a result, there are an estimated 500,000 patients who received all-metal replacement hips. Many of these hips were sold without testing in patients.

Because of the high rate of failure of the metal-on-metal hips, most surgeons are going back to the old metal-and-plastic ones.

Patients who have received metal-on-metal hips may have a valid products liability claim against the manufacturers. They are entitled to claim compensation for their lost wages, medical expenses and pain and suffering, which includes compensation for the ordeal of going through with an additional hip replacement.

Under New York defective products law, a person injured by a defective or dangerous product doesn't need to show that the manufacturer was negligent or careless, but only that the product was unreasonably dangerous. This means that even if the manufacturer did not know and could not have known there would be problems with the metal-on-metal hip replacements, they can be held liable for the damages that the product causes, if it is found to be unreasonably dangerous.

Patients who have a failed hip replacement should contact a New York products liability lawyer to understand their rights.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Drop-side cribs should have been dropped a long time ago. Why? Because they kill. I blogged about drop-side crib deaths last year. The drop-side sometimes created a gap between the mattress and side rail where babies got caught, suffocated and died. About 40 babies have been strangled to death since 2000. This of course led to product liability lawsuits in New York and around the nation.

Are drop-side cribs convenient? Yes. A lifting side rail allows parents to easily place and pick up their baby. But in a convenience-versus-safety match, especially where babies are concerned, safety should win out.

And finally it did. This week the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is finally banning drop-side cribs, even at yard sales! Now, all four sides will be fixed, and so will the problem of baby strangulation.

Better still, all crib models sold in the U.S. will be rigorously tested for tightened hardware that can't shake loose from a baby's rattling.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

As every New York prescription drug lawyer knows, prescription drug suppliers don't always do a stellar job warning their customers about risks associated with their products. In fact, sometimes they do a plainly lousy job. And that can cause serious injury, or even death, to prescription drug users.

But every wrong has a legal remedy, right? Who could disagree with that?

The Supreme Court of the United States, that's who. Last Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, in a case called Pliva v Mensing, , ruled that the makers of generic drugs (as opposed to brand-name drugs) may not be sued for faulty or inadequate warning labels. This is surprising, to say the least, since two years ago the same Court, in Wyeth v Levine, reached an opposite conclusion regarding the makers of brand-name drugs.

The reason for the disparity in treatment? The majority in the Pliva case says that brand-name drug companies can change the labels on their products without seeking permission from the FDA, while generic drug makers cannot. True enough (one of the idiosyncrasies of Federal drug law), but this recent court ruling does not allow consumers to sue generic drug makers even where they can show they failed to make diligent efforts to solicit permission from the FDA to change their labeling when they saw a problem emerging. Instead, they can sit back and relax --- while you lie down and die.

Even the Court seems to recognize the absurdity of having one rule for brand-name drugs and another for generic drugs. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion in PLIVA, admitted the distinction between generic and brand-name drugs "makes little sense."

I agree. New York prescription drug lawyers agree. And if you or someone you love gets sick or dies because of faulty warnings on generic prescription drugs, you will agree, too.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

So what rights would we New Yorkers have to compensation in the event of a New York Nuclear Power Plant Catastrophe?

Let's assume that Oswego's Nuclear Power Plant suddenly broke down and started spewing out dangerous radioactivity, just like in Japan. Let's assume your family ended up sick, or dead, and that you had to move out of your home --- forever --- and that its market value was reduced to zero dollars. Can you sue the Power Plant owner? If so, for how much?

Well, I've got some bad news for you. Even though under New York common law principles you would be able to sue the power company for every penny of compensation you were entitled to for all those catastrophic losses, a not-well-known federal law trumps New York law, and would probably force you to accept pennies for every dollar you would otherwise be entitled to.

The law is called the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, and it places a damages cap on the liability of nuclear power plant owners or operators. Under this Act, the power plant owners or operators pay an insurance premium each year to create a kind of "no-fault" system for paying damages caused by nuclear accidents. The total payout available from the fund for personal injury and property loss for nuclear accidents amounts to only about $13 billion.

I say "only" because that's such a small amount of money considering the devastating, widespread catastrophic damages a nuclear disaster would unleash to hundreds of thousands of our local central New York residents and businesses. In fact, the damages that would result from a major nuclear catastrophe are estimated at more like $500 billion.

The stated intent of the Price-Anderson Act was to foster commercial development of nuclear power. But what ever happened to the free market system? Why shouldn't big power companies have to pay full dollar for catastrophes that, through their negligence, they unleash? The Act, which seems to me extremely unfair, survived a constitutional challenge in 1978 in Duke Power Co. v Carolina Environment Study Group

Who pays the price for this generous "gift" our federal government gave to the power industry? You do, of course. Should, god forbid, our local nuclear power company, through its negligence or carelessness, unleash a Japan-like disaster, none of us will get anything even close to true justice. We will be stuck with the pennies-on-a-dollar compensation provided for in the Price-Anderson Act. And as a Central New York personal injury lawyer, that both offends and scares me . . . .

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

I just read about a bicycle accident case from Texas that teaches New York riders a BIG lesson. The lesson? Preserve the evidence! Read on.

The biker recently filed a products liability suit against Trek Bicycle Corporation, the bicycle manufacturer, claiming his 2002 Trek roadbike's steering fork cracked, causing his handle bars to collapse, which in turn caused him to hit the pavement and suffer a severe brain injury. The poor guy has been in a coma ever since. (His family filed suit on his behalf). You can read about it here.

That's all I know about the case, but I can already tell you what Trek's defense will be. Either: (1) the biker misused or altered the bike, thus causing the crack in the steering fork at some time before the accident, or (2) the biker lost control of the bike, fell, and the crash itself caused the steering fork to crack and the handle bar to collapse.

If you have a curious mind, you might be asking, "how does this poor coma-stricken road biker beat trek? Doesn't he, as plaintiff, have the burden of proof? And how does he prove a defect in the steering fork made him go down if he is in a coma?

Answer: If his family preserved the bicycle without altering it and brought it intact to his bicycle accident lawyer, the lawyer can hire an expert engineer specialized in bikes to carefully examine the fissures in the steering fork, and the entire bike, for evidence of how the accident happened, and how the crack was formed. But if they tossed the bike out, or messed around with it, they will have destroyed the evidence, and they will never be able to prove the case.

Moral of the story? If you go down on your bike, are seriously injured, and suspect it was the bike's fault, don't mess with the bike! Get it to your New York bicycle accident lawyer. He'll get it to an expert engineer. That expert might even recommend that the steering fork be examined by a metallurgist, who will look with a microscope at the crack to better determine the cause. Was the metal too soft or brittle? Was there some microscopic defect in this piece of metal? If there is any manufacturing or design defect that caused this accident, Trek will be liable.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

I have been a Central and Syracuse New York personal injury lawyer for many years now. So I have been around the block a few times. I am steeped in our civil justice system. And I have news for you: It works just fine. It ain't broken, so don't fix it. No "tort reform" needed, thank you.

Here's an example of how our civil justice system automatically weeds out frivolous lawsuits without the need for tort reform.

The other day I went to visit a farmer whose arm had recently been ripped off by a piece of farm equipment. I went to inspect the machine to see if the manufacturer was to blame. If the design was unreasonably dangerous, and the dangerous machine caused the accident, the farmer would have had a good New York products liability claim to compensate him to the tune of several million dollars.

As it turned out, there was nothing wrong with the machine; the farmer had simply made a mistake. He should have shut the machine off before he climbed into where he did to fix a mechanical problem. We all make mistakes, and unfortunately this one cost him dearly.

So guess what? I did not file a frivolous claim. And my farmer friend did not ask me to file a frivolous claim on his behalf. He understood and accepted my explanation as to why he had no claim. He was grateful to me for having explained how the law works and why he had no case.

Even if I had been an unethical lawyer who wanted to file a frivolous claim, I would not have filed the frivolous claim. Why not? It would have made no economic sense. The claim would have cost me lots of money and time and would have eventually been dismissed. And no, the manufacturer would not have paid us big bucks to go away. He would have paid us nothing, or next to nothing, and certainly not enough to pay for my time and expenses on the case.

This case is no different than any other in this regard: It never makes any economic sense to file a frivolous claim.

Real flesh-and-blood personal injury lawyers (as opposed to the figments of tort reformers' imagination) live by this refrain: "you make money on the cases you turn down". What this means is that you can only make a living in this business by turning down frivolous cases, and taking only legitimate ones.

So please contact me if you believe you may have a legitimate New York personal injury claim.

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

As a Central Syracuse New York products liability lawyer, I take a keen interest in news about dangerous products or false safety claims by manufacturers. That's why an article in the New York Times caught my eye yesterday. The article talked about how United States Senator Tom Udall (Democrat, NM) is formally requesting that the Federal Trade Commission investigate the alleged deceptive advertising practices of sports helmet manufacturers.

The senator says two major helmet manufacturers, Riddell and Schutt, have been fooling the public with their claims to increased concussion prevention. But Udall has his crosshairs mostly on Riddell, whose ads claim that that its "Revolution" helmets decrease the risk of concussions by as much as 31 percent. This 31 percent figure is deemed deceptive because the "Revolution" helmets were compared with second-hand helmets in unknown condition and with unknown manufacture date.

The advertising is clearly aimed at cashing in on parents' increasing worries about the long-term effects of concussions on their child-athletes
.
Deceptive safety claims in advertising are not new. The truth is that unsafe products are often marketed and sold as safe. Think about the tobacco industry and how they continued to claim that their cigarettes were safe even years after the entire medical community had determined they were not.

Let's face it; companies often fail to give full and proper warnings about the dangers of their products. Why? In a word, "money". They can sell more products by keeping their customers in the dark about the dangers that lurk beneath the smooth veneer of their products.

How can we dissuade companies from deceptive safety claims? Two ways: Strict government oversight, with heavy fines for deceptive practices (thank you Senator Tom Udall!) and product liability lawsuits (my job!).

When weighing the pros and cons of making exaggerated safety claims, companies place increased sales earnings on the "let's do it" side of the scale. New York product liability lawyers like me sit on the other side of the scale, the "you'd better not" side. And I'm pretty proud to be sitting here.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

If you're like me, you wouldn't mind being Spiderman. Hey, he's got a cool way of getting around, shooting spider-gook from his wrists and swinging around town. Beats driving in city traffic.

But every job has its drawbacks, even Spiderman's. We learned this week that he plummeted 30 feet during Monday night's performance of the Broadway production, "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark". Doctors say he is in serious condition, with broken ribs and internal bleeding.

Little is known about how this accident happened. We do know, however, that somehow the wire he was swinging from failed. (In this Broadway show, he was swinging from wires rather than his spider-gook --- go figure!) We do not know whether the wire failed because it snapped or because it became unfastened. Either way, it appears certain that Spiderman was the victim of someone's negligence (unless it was Green Goblin's sabotage).

Who could Spiderman sue? If the wire snapped, he may have a New York defective product (product liability) claim against the manufacturer. If stagehands failed to properly fasten the wire, he could have a New York negligence claim against them and their employer. There are all kinds of variations on these possibilities; maybe someone negligently failed to instruct or train the stagehands in the art of wire fastening, or someone neglected to properly inspect the wire before use, or perhaps the manufacture failed to provide proper warnings, or warranted the wire for greater weight than it could hold. A New York accident lawyer should thoroughly investigate all these possibilities so he can catch all possible villains in his legal web.

Is it possible that our superhero was a victim of a mere "accident"? Is it possible that everyone did everything right and that this accident just "happened"? No. That's not possible. Almost all "accidents" are caused by someone's carelessness. This one is no different. Someone, somewhere, somehow screwed up. In fact, news sources say that the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Actors Equity representatives have already recommended new safety measures to prevent a repeat. I wish I Knew what those new measures were, because that would tell me who did what wrong.

But the show must go on. We wish the fallen Spiderman a speedy, full recovery, and we hope the producers and others on the set have learned some valuable safety lessons so as to avoid injuring other spidermen.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.

Convenience and safety often clash. Quick example: In the old days, before the era of car seats and booster seats, getting the kids into the car was so easy, so convenient. You just threw them in and off you went. Early on, there weren't even seatbelts. Only problem was that kids were getting mangled, crushed and killed in car accidents. Enter car seats and booster seats. What a pain in the a--! All that strapping in, tying down. Inconvenient, isn't it? But safe.

Now let's take cribs. Several decades ago some smart engineers invented a great convenience: Drop-side cribs (see photograph featured here). No more leaning over the side of the crib to awkwardly place baby to bed. It was a hit!

Only problem was babies were dying. The drop-side sometimes created a V-shaped gap between the mattress and side rail where babies got caught, suffocated and died. At least 32 infants have died this way since 2000.

When you think of all those babies, thousands of them, who have successfully used drop-side cribs over the last decade, 32 deaths do not seem like a lot. Unless it's your baby. Then it seems like way too many. Then, after you have buried your baby, and have cried rivers of tears, you may say to yourself, between spasms of guilt and grief, "hey, the guys who made this crib knew that other babies had died in them, but they sold it to me anyway. They made money. And they killed my baby". You might long for justice. Then you might stop in to see someone like me, a New York defective product lawyer. And then together we might file a New York products liability lawsuit against the company who put the baby-killing product on the market.

Many of the companies who made these cribs had recalled them over the year. They knew they had a problem. And despite repeated attempts, they were unable to design or manufacture a fool-proof drop-side crib. So last Wednesday the Consumer Product Safety Commission finally voted unanimously to ban the manufacture, sale and resale of the cribs.

The ban makes sense. Convenience is not worth the lives of 30 babies a decade.