The minor plaintiff (“PC”) lived at all relevant times in an apartment with his mother (“MT”) and grandmother (“GM”). PC’s head and neck became entrapped between the rear lid and side wall of the subject container.
The subject container was located at the edge of part of the parking lot on the premises of the apartment complex, and in close proximity to a playground and playground area frequented by the many children who lived on the premises. As a result of the incident, PC suffered a loss of oxygen and traumatic brain damage.
Plaintiffs alleged that the container was defective in several ways, including: inadequate or non-existent warnings and cautions, including pursuant to standards; lack of safety inspections; and ease of accessibility by children.
Defendants were prepared to aggressively defend the lawsuit, had hired numerous top-tier experts, and focused on (in part): product identification issues; alterations to the product over decades; the family’s knowledge that the child had climbed on the container prior to the incident, and had been warned that it was dangerous; the container was clearly separate from the playground, and not part of the play area; and lack of supervision.
Need Help?
If you or someone you know, needs help from a lawyer, contact the law offices of Swartz & Swartz, use our live chat, or send us a message using the form below and we’ll get in touch to assess your case and how we can help.
About the Author: James Swartz
Keep Reading
Want more? Here are some other blog posts you might be interested in.
These playground safety tips protect kids. However, if your child is hurt in an accident, you may have grounds to file a claim for compensation.
Research shows smartphones, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, and other such factors have led to an increase in traffic deaths in the U.S.
Small parts that can harm children are common in many products, even when federal law bans them sometimes.
