Get in touch
SOUTH JERSEY
PHILADELPHIA
FLORIDA

Phony Toys, Real Injuries

David Haislip • Dec 02, 2020

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or another such festive day, the holiday season is a time meant to be spent with family, spreading good cheer, stuffing one’s face on a delicious assortment of holiday grub, and exchanging presents so that we may see the joy and wonder of the season on the faces of our children as they open their gifts. Unfortunately though, with the exchanging of gifts comes the worry that these toys are, in fact, safe for our children to play with.

 

With the 2020 Holiday Season upon us, it is the perfect time to educate oneself on a troubling Christmas trend – the rise of counterfeit or “knock-off” children’s toys. 

 

In an interview with New Jersey Radio 101.5, Port Director for the Port of New York and New Jersey with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Adele Fasano, said that in fiscal year 2018 there had been more than 2,900 seizures of counterfeit merchandise, including knock-off children’s toys from overseas.

 

Director Fasano further explained that knowingly buying counterfeit merchandise is illegal in many states – a consequence for the buyer – but that it can also have unintended consequences for others. For one thing, Fasano informed, the proliferation of cheap knock-off merchandise can cannibalize the legitimate market, resulting in  “the loss of American jobs, [and the] support of criminal activity.” Additionally though, Fasano warns that the purchase of such counterfeit merchandise, especially children’s toys, can pose, “significant risks to consumer health and safety.” Therefore, Fasano urged, that when doing your holiday shopping and when picking out toys to buy your children or the children of others, to “please make sure you purchase all your products from reputable sources.”

 

The Lento Law Group reminds that ensuring that the holiday toys you purchase for your children – or for other people’s children – are not counterfeit is particularly important so as to safeguard these children from the risk of potential injury due to cheaply made knock-off toys which may be prone to causing injuries such as lacerations, burns, bruising, choking hazards, or even death.

 

But even legitimate sources toys can pose their hazards as well. 

 

World Against Toys Causing Harm – or W.A.T.C.H. – is a non-profit watch-dog organization dedicated to educating the public about dangerous children’s toys. Every year, W.A.T.C.H. releases an annual “10 Worst Toys” report, informing parents of what the organization considers to be that year’s top ten most dangerous children’s toys. Here is 2020’s “10 Worst Toys” according to this year’s W.A.T.C.H report and the reason why they consider the toy to be unsafe:

 

  1. “Calico Critters Nursery Friends” manufactured by Epoch Co., LTD

Reason: “Potential for Choking Injuries”

 

2. “Missile Launcher” by Toysmith

Reason: “Potential for Eye and Facial Injuries”

 

3. “Marvel Avengers Vibranium Power FX Claw” by Hasbro

Reason: “Potential for Eye and Facial Injuries”

 

4. “Gloria Owl” by Jellycat Ltd.

Reason: “Potential for Ingestion/Aspiration Injuries”

 

5. “WWE Jumbo Superstar Fists” by Jakks Pacific, Inc.

Reason: “Potential for Blunt Force and Impact Injuries”

 

6. “Scientific Explorer Sci-Fi Slime” by Alex Brands

Reason: “Potential for Chemical Related Injuries”

 

7. “The Original Boomerang Interactive Stunt UFO” by Amax Group

Reason: “Potential for Cutting and Propeller-Related Injuries”

 

8. “Boom City Racers Starter Pack” by Moose Toys, LLC

Reason: “Potential for Eye and Facial Injuries”

 

9. “My Sweet Love: Lots to Love Babies, Minis” by JC Toys Group, Inc.

Reason: “Potential for Ingestion and Choking Injuries”

 

10. “Star Wars: Mandalorian Darksaber” by Hasbro

Reason: “Potential for Blunt Force and Eye Injuries”

 

Note that the Lento Law Group does not specifically endorse W.A.T.C.H.’s findings with respect to these toys; rather, we are merely sharing their independent findings for your consideration as it is important to know which toys your child may receive this holiday season that may be potentially harmful. Ensuring your children’s toys are safe and not subject to a product recall is particularly important, as W.A.T.C.H. warns in its report, “One child is treated in U.S. emergency rooms every three minutes for a toy-related injury”. 

 

Clearly, defective, counterfeit, or dangerous toys are the cause of thousands of injuries every year in the U.S., and product liability law provides the legal framework to hold manufacturers responsible for defective or dangerous toys.

 

As there is no federal product liability law, these types of product liability claims are typically based on state law and brought under theories of negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty. Additionally, commercial statutes in each state, often modeled on the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”), can contain warranty rules which may affect litigant’s rights with respect to product liability.

 

Types of Product Defects

 

In a products liability case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish that the injury-causing product was defective, and that the defect was such that the product was unreasonably dangerous as a result. Generally, there are three types of defects that might cause injury and potentially give rise to liability on the part of the manufacturer or the supplier:

 

Design Defects – These are defects present in a product from its inception, even before it is manufactured, in that something in the design of the product is inherently unsafe.

 

Manufacturing Defects – These defects occur during the course of a product's manufacture or assembly, often because the manufacture has deviated from the product’s design in some way, often unknowingly or unintentionally.

 

Marketing Defects – These defects are inadequacies, inaccuracies, or omissions in the way a product is marketed, such as improper labeling, insufficient instructions, or inadequate safety warnings.

 

Who is Responsible for Toy-Related Injuries?

 

A legal doctrine known as "res ipsa loquitur" – in Latin, meaning, “the thing speaks for itself,” shifts the burden of proof in unique negligence cases where a mechanism of injury was so unusual that the mere virtue of its occurrence is indicative of someone else’s negligence. Put another way, the injury would not have ordinarily occurred in the absence of the defendant’s negligence, provided the mechanism of injury was in the defendant’s exclusive control and that the actions of the person injured did not cause or contribute to the injury occurring. 

 

The doctrine can be very helpful in products liability cases, because if it is successfully invoked, the plaintiff is no longer required to prove how the defendant was negligent; rather, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that it was not negligent.

 

Another legal doctrine helpful to plaintiffs in product liability cases is that of strict liability, for if strict liability applies, the plaintiff does not need to prove that a manufacturer was negligent, but only that the product in question was defective. By eliminating from debate the issue of manufacturer fault, the concept of no-fault, or "strict" liability may allow a plaintiff to successfully recover in a case that could otherwise be difficult to prove.

 

If Your Child is Injured This Christmas

 

Try as we may, no one can prevent all accidents. Even the most diligent parent can inadvertently buy an unsafe toy for their, or someone else’s children. Often, product liability actions are very complex, and establishing legal fault can require the expertise of experienced professionals such as mechanical engineers to offer their opinions on the design of an arguably unsafe product. Additionally, as products liability is largely predicated upon state law which may differ from state-to-state, it is critical if you child is injured by a toy this holiday, that you contact a knowledgeable attorney to evaluate your claim. At Lento Law Group, we are committed to helping those who have sustained injuries through the carelessness of others, especially children.

 

If your child has suffered an injury this holiday caused by a potentially defective toy, call the Lento Law Group today! We will be happy to answer your questions and help you and your child get the recovery you deserve. As always, stay safe, and have a very Happy Holiday!

More News & Resources

By Joseph D. Lento 03 May, 2024
Nurses facing abuse or other misconduct charges over inappropriate patient restraint need skilled defense representation.
By Lawrence A. Katz 26 Apr, 2024
The news has recently had almost daily stories about the social media app, Tik Tok, and Congress’ threat to make using it illegal unless its ownership is transferred from its present Chinese owners. The argument for requiring the removal of Chinses owners is that they require access to personal and confidential information and that poses a national security risk. I have seen tech experts who question whether transferring ownership will actually eliminate that threat. They suggest that if the computer code for the Tik Top app already contains a “backdoor” enabling the secret access to information, changing ownership will not correct the problem. This blog is not intended to discuss those issues. Instead, we will address the claims by many that preventing people from using Tik Tok is a First Amendment free speech violation. I suggest that it is not. This is a tidbit to keep for your next Trivia Night. The First Amendment was originally only intended to prohibit the federal government from interfering with free speech. It was not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited all levels of government (states and local governments) from interfering with free speech. A government can limit speech if doing so is content neutral. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “A regulation of speech is facially content based under the First Amendment if it ‘target[s] speech based on its communicative content’—that is, if it ‘applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022). Thus, where a transit system prohibited all advertisements on its premises, the Court held that the limit was constitutional because it applied to all subjects and opinions. In contrast, a limitation on a single message is not permitted. In Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA, 975 F.3d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 2020), a Court of Appeals ruled against a public transit agency’s refusal to accept advertisements that were political or discussed matters of public debate. The regulation was not content neutral. The prohibition against Tik Tok would likely be found constitutional because the prohibition is not based on a specific subject or viewpoint. There is one other issue that must be raised --- it is highly unlikely that a government could prohibit all means of public forums for speech. Even if content neutral, it is unlikely that a government could prohibit all social media any more than it could prohibit all newspapers. However, in the case of Tik Tok, prohibiting it from operating in the United States does not effectively prohibit all means of public forums as several other social media platforms still exist. Thus, the often-voiced opinion that eliminating Tik Tok denies its users their First Amendment rights is inaccurate.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr 26 Apr, 2024
While dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” dogs can also be dangerous, and even the friendliest of dogs may bite when provoked. This this blog post we will discuss some general legal theory about animal bites, including dog bites, and outline what you should do if you were bit by another person’s dog or other animal. Can I Sue for a Dog Bite? Before I answer this question, it is important to understand the legal theory that undergirds animal bite cases. The law classically categorized animals into two categories: domitae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically domesticated or tamed – and ferae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically feral, wild, or exotic. This distinction is significant legally because, generally speaking, those who possess a ferae naturae animal – for example, a tiger – do so at their own peril. This is because if ferae naturae animal bites another person, the owner of the animal is generally presumed to be at-fault. While the owner of a domitae naturae animal can also be held liable for the actions of that animal, generally, a bite by such an animal – for example, a cat or a dog – may not necessarily give rise to a presumption of fault. At least, that was the classical framework. This has been changed by individual laws in many states. Most states have adopted a strict-liability standard in connection with dog bites. This means that a biting dog’s owner will be held liable for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner used reasonable care to restrain the dog or to protect or warn the other party. Often, this strict-liability view can be viewed as harsh, if one adheres to the “accidents happen” mentality. In recognition of the potentially harsh outcomes strict-liability may bring about, a handful of other states have adopted a “One-Bite Rule”. In essence, a One-Bite Rule is a law that provides that a dog owner may only be held liable if they knew or should have known that the dog has a vicious propensity or is prone to bite, and that owner would only have such knowledge if the dog has bitten someone in the past. In other words, the One-Bite Rule is called this because the owner of a dog with a propensity to bite essentially gets their first bite free because the owner will likely not be found liable for the first bite. This is consistent with the notion of the “foreseeability of the harm” that undergirds much of tort law – in other words, how could the owner foresee that his or her dog would bite if it has never done so before? Conversely, the owner should know, and should therefore be held liable, if the dog has bitten someone before. So, to answer the question of whether you can sue if you have been bitten by a dog, the answer, generally is yes, but the merits of you claim will depend largely on whether you live in a strict-liability state or a One-Bite Rule state. What Do I Do If I Have Been Bitten? While you may, of course, be panicked immediately following a dog bite, it is important to do the following: · Call 911 to report the incident. Make sure a police report is filed, and get a copy of it. · Get the dog owner’s name and contact information, if possible. · Try to get a picture of the dog and the owner, if possible. · Take pictures of the bite wounds while they are still fresh. · Go seek medical treatment, if necessary, and try to leave the appointment with a copy of your medical record in connection with the visit. · Contact a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. If you or a loved one have been injured by a public actor or public entity, call the Lento Law Group today. Our team of knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys and support staff can help guide you while you work to pick up the pieces after a traumatic accident. Call Lento Law Group today at (856) 652-2000. We will fight to get you the recovery you deserve.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. 26 Apr, 2024
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. July 2023
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 20 April, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 April, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 March, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Lawrence A. Katz, Esquire • 07 Feb, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
Professional discipline in one state can affect a professional license in another state. Don’t run. Get help up front.
01 Mar, 2024
ERIC HAKEEM DEONTAYE MAYS, late Councilman Eric Mays's son and only next of kin, along with Bishop Patrick Munnerlyn, Community Outreach Specialist for the Lento Law Group, cordially invites the Flint community to a candlelight vigil to honor the remarkable life and legacy of Councilman Eric B. Mays. The vigil will take place on Saturday, March 2, at 6:00 PM in front of Flint City Hall, as we come together to celebrate a true hero of Flint, a relentless champion for the community, a visionary leader, a devoted public servant, and a cherished friend. Councilman Mays was a beacon of hope and strength for Flint, advocating tirelessly for the rights and well-being of its residents. His unwavering dedication to serving the community has left an indelible mark on the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing him. As we gather to remember his remarkable contributions, let us light candles in unity to illuminate the path he paved toward a brighter future for Flint. This vigil is an opportunity for us to reflect on the profound impact of Councilman Mays’ work, to share stories of his courage and kindness, and to reaffirm our commitment to the values he embodied. Participants are welcome to bring their own candles, but candles will also be provided (as long as supplies last) to ensure that everyone can join in this act of remembrance and solidarity. Councilman Mays’ love for the people of Flint was boundless, and in return, he was deeply loved and respected by the community he served. As we mourn his passing, we also celebrate the legacy of a man who dedicated his life to making Flint a better place for all its residents. It has indeed been a sad week in Flint, but let us come together to honor a man who gave so much of himself to our city. Join us in front of Flint City Hall to pay tribute to Councilman Eric B. Mays, a man who deserves the best: our collective love, respect, and admiration. We invite everyone to come and show their support by standing in solidarity as we remember a great man who has left an everlasting mark on our community. Atlanta, GA • Birmingham, AL • Boulder, CO • Coral Springs, FL • Detroit, MI • El Paso, TX • Flint, MI • Honolulu, HI • Los Angeles, CA • Maui, HI Miami, FL • Mount Laurel, NJ • Newark, NJ • New York, NY • Orlando, FL • Philadelphia, PA • Puerta Plata, DR •Richmond, VA • Salt Lake City, UT San Juan, PR • Scottsdale, AZ • Washington, DC 
More Posts
Share by: