Showing posts with label Product liability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Product liability. Show all posts
Friday, June 25, 2010
Federal Jury Provides Oklahoma Man with $1.1 M For Injuries Sustained From Bicycle Failure
A Oklahoma man has been provided with $1.1 million by a federal jury in Oklahoma for injuries he sustained in a crash caused when the bracket holding his bicycle's front fender broke. The product liability lawsuit against Pacific Cycle alleged that the bicycle was inherently dangerous and defective. The failure of the bracket caused the fender to suddenly come into contact with the bike's front wheel which caused the bike to stop suddenly, propelling the man over the handlebars and onto the pavement. This story was reported in Tulsa World.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Safety Commission Announces Recall of Niner Bike Frame Due to Welding Defect
Niner Bikes of North Hollywood, California and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced yesterday the recall of the company's "Jet 9" full suspension, aluminum mountain bike frame. "A welding deficiency can cause the bicycle frames to crack along the welds of the front triangle of the bicycle. This can cause the rider to lose control and crash," according to the Commission. If you own one of these bikes stop using it and contact Niner Bikes about replacement options. Click here to read the complete recall release.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Lifting the Veil On Carbon Fiber
It seems that for the last ten to fifteen years carbon fiber has been the sexy bicycle building material. It is light, stiff and expensive. It looks exotic. It is not a metal, and how cool is that, right? Well, sometimes not so much. It can fail in frightening ways. How much is really known about this material is a question recently asked by the folks at mountainbike.com. Last week they published a fascinating article on how carbon fiber bike frames and components are made and how and why they can fail. This is must read stuff for the attorney handling or considering a product liability action and for the consumer thinking about throwing down big bucks for a bike made of what the magazine calls "Black Magic." Here is a link to the full article. Here is a sampling:
Why carbon in the first place? For one, there's what engineers call the "black aluminum" analogy: A sheet of carbon composite would be just as stiff and strong as an identical sheet of aluminum, but a third lighter. Then there's "tunability." While metal frame shapes are by nature isotropic (they exhibit the same properties of strength and stiff ness on any axis), carbon fiber composites are anisotropic (those properties exist only along the axis of the fiber direction). So a skilled composites engineer can "tune" the way a tube responds to diff erent loads simply by orienting the carbon fibers in various directions. There are, of course, drawbacks. First, you need said skilled composites engineer. You cannot randomly orient fibers and expect a good result. The art lies not in merely alternating the ply orientation, but also the direction and number of plies—the layup schedule. Second, because manufacturing is incredibly labor-intensive, with almost everything done by hand, it must be obsessively controlled for quality.
Why carbon in the first place? For one, there's what engineers call the "black aluminum" analogy: A sheet of carbon composite would be just as stiff and strong as an identical sheet of aluminum, but a third lighter. Then there's "tunability." While metal frame shapes are by nature isotropic (they exhibit the same properties of strength and stiff ness on any axis), carbon fiber composites are anisotropic (those properties exist only along the axis of the fiber direction). So a skilled composites engineer can "tune" the way a tube responds to diff erent loads simply by orienting the carbon fibers in various directions. There are, of course, drawbacks. First, you need said skilled composites engineer. You cannot randomly orient fibers and expect a good result. The art lies not in merely alternating the ply orientation, but also the direction and number of plies—the layup schedule. Second, because manufacturing is incredibly labor-intensive, with almost everything done by hand, it must be obsessively controlled for quality.
* * * * *
At C-Tech, a programmed machine cuts giant rolls of three-foot-wide prepreg sheet into an array of smaller pieces needed to assemble a frame, from swaths of intermediate or high-modulus fiber large enough to cover an entire down tube to small, twoinch- square swatches of high-strength standard-modulus fiber that will be valuable reinforcement structures. It's an exacting process—each ply of carbon must be cut to size, and with the proper fiber orientation.
Once the plies are ready, they are shipped to the layup room. There, workers assemble a layup kit and follow the layup schedule to precisely assemble whatever part they're working on. A single frame built at C-Tech may have as many as 500 individual plies of carbon, of varying modulus, sizes, locations and fiber orientations. Because of this complexity and the level of human involvement, the layup room is both the nexus for quality control and where most of the headaches lie.
"You can do everything right and have a great engineer and design and materials, and if the layup guy had a bender the night before and forgets a part of the frame, it's toast," says Tomac general manager Joel Smith, who moves his entire family to Taichung, Taiwan, for three months during the prime manufacturing timeframe to ensure quality at Tomac's partner factory, A-Pro.
Once the plies are ready, they are shipped to the layup room. There, workers assemble a layup kit and follow the layup schedule to precisely assemble whatever part they're working on. A single frame built at C-Tech may have as many as 500 individual plies of carbon, of varying modulus, sizes, locations and fiber orientations. Because of this complexity and the level of human involvement, the layup room is both the nexus for quality control and where most of the headaches lie.
"You can do everything right and have a great engineer and design and materials, and if the layup guy had a bender the night before and forgets a part of the frame, it's toast," says Tomac general manager Joel Smith, who moves his entire family to Taichung, Taiwan, for three months during the prime manufacturing timeframe to ensure quality at Tomac's partner factory, A-Pro.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Personal Jurisdiction Over A Foreign Bicycle Component Part Manufacturer
Bicycle components can and do fail, sometimes causing serious injury to the cyclist. Imagine flying down technical single track and having your stem break. Try to wrap your brain around what it would be like to have your steering tube fail while in a packed peloton. How horrifying to attempt to stop your fixed gear bike in city traffic and your chain breaks. When incidents like these occur causing serious injury a product liability lawsuit may be filed against the manufacturer of the failed component. Such lawsuits offer challenges aplenty to even the most experienced personal injury lawyer. One significant challenge is establishing personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer in Illinois.
Many, if not most, bicycle parts are manufactured overseas, often in Taiwan, China and Japan. That not necessarily a bad thing for the consumer. By my observation a lot of high quality parts are made in Asia, notably Taiwan and Japan. However, for the attorney attempting to haul one of these manufacturers into an Illinois courtroom, a defendant with such a far flung home base may present a challenge. One cannot simply decide to sue someone, whether an individual or corporation, in any old place. There must be some connection between the person or entity being sued and the place where the lawsuit is filed. It is the burden of the person filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, to establish that the court where the suit is filed has personal jurisdiction over the defendant manufacturer. Without personal jurisdiction a court has no power to render a judgment against the putative defendant. A corporation need not have its headquarters in the state in order to be hauled into court here. A foreign corporation may submit to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts by simply doing some business in the state. 735 ILCS 5/2-209. The corporate defendant must have minimum contacts with the state to be sued here. In March, 2009 the Illinois Appellate Court had the opportunity to determine whether an Illinois trial court had personal jurisdiction over a bicycle component part manufacturer located in Taiwan. In Dickie v. Cannondale Corporation, et. al., 388 Ill.App.3d 903 (1st Dist. 2009), the court found that personal jurisdiction had not been established. The plaintiff in that case had been riding his cyclocross bike with "CODA" clipless pedals, a product of Cannondale Corporation, that were manufactured by Wellgo Corporation when he crashed and was thrown forward over the handlebars. He allegedly suffered injuies to this left hip and leg which twisted because his left foot did not disengage from the pedal. He sued Wellgo in Illinois for negligence in the way it designed and manufactured the pedals. Wellgo moved to have the claim against it dismissed on the basis that it had no minimum contacts with Illinois and that the court, therefore, had no jurisdiction over the corporation. In support of its motion to dismiss, Wellgo submitted an affidavit from its sales director which stated that:
Wellgo is in the business of designing and manufacturing bicycle pedals, including the clipless pedals in the case at bar. Wellgo's pedals are manufactured at a Wellgo facility in Taiching, Taiwan. After being manufactured, the pedals are sold and shipped to Cash Crest Co., and Wellgo has no further involvement with the distribution of the product. . . Wellgo is not licensed, authorized or registered to do business in any state of the United States. It further states that Wellgo, in Illinois, has never sold or shipped products, executed a contract, provided services, paid taxes, possessed assets, maintained a telephone or fax number, employed any individuals, attended trade shows or meetings, advertised, or otherwise solicited business in Illinois. 388 Ill.App.3d at 904-5.
In response, the plaintiff argued "that personal jurisdiction existed over Wellgo under a 'stream of commerce theory'." 388 Ill.App.3d at 905. He asserted that though Wellgo's entire operation was located outside of the United States, it was well "aware that Cannondale was an American company that distributed its products throughout the United States," including Illinois. In other words, Wellgo must have known its products would be marketed and sold in Illinois, thereby establishing minimum contact with the state. The appellate court was unpersuaded by this argument. It noted that "no evidence shows that Wellgo was otherwise aware of specifically where and how Cannondale's products were marketed or sold. Wellgo sold the pedals to Cash Crest Co., a Taiwanese trading company, and from there had no control over or knowledge regarding the distribution of the pedals." Id. at 908. The court also noted that "Wellgo never shipped the subject pedals directly to a distributor in the United States. . . Wellgo has no presence in Illinois." Id. Wellgo's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was, therefore, upheld.
What Illinois lawyers representing injured bicyclists may take away from Dickie is that in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a component part manufacturer, the corporation must have some contact with the state greater than simply releasing its product into the general marketplace. When no such minimum contact exists, however, there is another option. In Illinois, a component part supplier can be held liable for distribution of a dangerous product into the stream of commerce under negligence and strict product liability theories. (A seller may not be held liable under a strict product theory, however.) Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n, 342 Ill.App.3d 95 (1st Dist. 2003). It is not clear from reading the Dickie decision whether Cash Crest Co. was added as a defendant to the lawsuit. But it apparently had direct contact with Cannondale thereby perhaps establishing contact with Illinois, where Cannondale certainly does a great deal of business. In any event, an inability to bring a remotely located component part manufacturer into the case does not mean that all is lost.
Many, if not most, bicycle parts are manufactured overseas, often in Taiwan, China and Japan. That not necessarily a bad thing for the consumer. By my observation a lot of high quality parts are made in Asia, notably Taiwan and Japan. However, for the attorney attempting to haul one of these manufacturers into an Illinois courtroom, a defendant with such a far flung home base may present a challenge. One cannot simply decide to sue someone, whether an individual or corporation, in any old place. There must be some connection between the person or entity being sued and the place where the lawsuit is filed. It is the burden of the person filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, to establish that the court where the suit is filed has personal jurisdiction over the defendant manufacturer. Without personal jurisdiction a court has no power to render a judgment against the putative defendant. A corporation need not have its headquarters in the state in order to be hauled into court here. A foreign corporation may submit to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts by simply doing some business in the state. 735 ILCS 5/2-209. The corporate defendant must have minimum contacts with the state to be sued here. In March, 2009 the Illinois Appellate Court had the opportunity to determine whether an Illinois trial court had personal jurisdiction over a bicycle component part manufacturer located in Taiwan. In Dickie v. Cannondale Corporation, et. al., 388 Ill.App.3d 903 (1st Dist. 2009), the court found that personal jurisdiction had not been established. The plaintiff in that case had been riding his cyclocross bike with "CODA" clipless pedals, a product of Cannondale Corporation, that were manufactured by Wellgo Corporation when he crashed and was thrown forward over the handlebars. He allegedly suffered injuies to this left hip and leg which twisted because his left foot did not disengage from the pedal. He sued Wellgo in Illinois for negligence in the way it designed and manufactured the pedals. Wellgo moved to have the claim against it dismissed on the basis that it had no minimum contacts with Illinois and that the court, therefore, had no jurisdiction over the corporation. In support of its motion to dismiss, Wellgo submitted an affidavit from its sales director which stated that:
Wellgo is in the business of designing and manufacturing bicycle pedals, including the clipless pedals in the case at bar. Wellgo's pedals are manufactured at a Wellgo facility in Taiching, Taiwan. After being manufactured, the pedals are sold and shipped to Cash Crest Co., and Wellgo has no further involvement with the distribution of the product. . . Wellgo is not licensed, authorized or registered to do business in any state of the United States. It further states that Wellgo, in Illinois, has never sold or shipped products, executed a contract, provided services, paid taxes, possessed assets, maintained a telephone or fax number, employed any individuals, attended trade shows or meetings, advertised, or otherwise solicited business in Illinois. 388 Ill.App.3d at 904-5.
In response, the plaintiff argued "that personal jurisdiction existed over Wellgo under a 'stream of commerce theory'." 388 Ill.App.3d at 905. He asserted that though Wellgo's entire operation was located outside of the United States, it was well "aware that Cannondale was an American company that distributed its products throughout the United States," including Illinois. In other words, Wellgo must have known its products would be marketed and sold in Illinois, thereby establishing minimum contact with the state. The appellate court was unpersuaded by this argument. It noted that "no evidence shows that Wellgo was otherwise aware of specifically where and how Cannondale's products were marketed or sold. Wellgo sold the pedals to Cash Crest Co., a Taiwanese trading company, and from there had no control over or knowledge regarding the distribution of the pedals." Id. at 908. The court also noted that "Wellgo never shipped the subject pedals directly to a distributor in the United States. . . Wellgo has no presence in Illinois." Id. Wellgo's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was, therefore, upheld.
What Illinois lawyers representing injured bicyclists may take away from Dickie is that in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a component part manufacturer, the corporation must have some contact with the state greater than simply releasing its product into the general marketplace. When no such minimum contact exists, however, there is another option. In Illinois, a component part supplier can be held liable for distribution of a dangerous product into the stream of commerce under negligence and strict product liability theories. (A seller may not be held liable under a strict product theory, however.) Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n, 342 Ill.App.3d 95 (1st Dist. 2003). It is not clear from reading the Dickie decision whether Cash Crest Co. was added as a defendant to the lawsuit. But it apparently had direct contact with Cannondale thereby perhaps establishing contact with Illinois, where Cannondale certainly does a great deal of business. In any event, an inability to bring a remotely located component part manufacturer into the case does not mean that all is lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)