New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The plaintiffs in the case are Tray Wrap, Inc. The defendants in the case are Pacific Tomato Growers LTD and Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association.

Case History

In this case, the defendant Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association is seeking an order for a summary judgment over the plaintiff in the instant action suit. The defendant declares that a summary judgment is warranted for a number of different reasons.

Plaintiff Argument

A New York Injury Lawyer said the first cause of action issued by the plaintiff states that the defendant had no factual or legal basis to file a complaint against them with the USDA. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant knew that the allegations made in the complaint were false and they willfully intended to defraud the plaintiff. As a result of this abuse of the process, the plaintiff is seeking punitive damages of $500,000. The second cause of action reiterates the first cause of action.

In support of their case, the plaintiff provides a transcript of Spinale’s deposition, which he states that on June 22, 2001, the defendant FFVA on behalf of Pacific brought a reparation action against the plaintiff. The action was preceded by an informal complaint letter that was dated March 27, 2000. Spinale declares that the instant action was started despite the absence of probable cause because neither of the defendants conducted an investigation to prove that the plaintiff had defrauded them.

The plaintiff also submits an affidavit from Mazie Faraci who reiterates the majority of what was said by Spinale. The plaintiff also submits a portion of the transcript from a senior marketing analyst from the USDA that states that it is his opinion that the USDA inspectors altered reports at the USDA’s discretion and affected the integrity of the USDA.

Defendant Argument

The defendant in the case is issuing a counterclaim against the plaintiff. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said that in the counterclaim, FFVA alleges that in April of 2002, a complaint was filed against the plaintiff for reimbursement of unauthorized adjustments. In this case the plaintiff and Pacific reached an agreement. The plaintiff then commenced the instant action against FFVA; even though the plaintiff had knowledge that FFVA was not a part of the actions between Pacific and the plaintiff.

The defendant issues a copy of the decision that was issued by SDNY in a case called “Tray-Wrap, Inc versus Meyer Tomatoes. This decision shows the amount of cost and fees that were to be awarded to the defendant in that action. This action involves facts that are similar to this case.

Case Results

The Court has partially granted the summary motion in favor of the defendant. However, the portion of the defendants claim to seek summary judgment in the case of malicious prosecution and abuse of the process is denied. However, the defendant has demonstrated an absence of misrepresentation or falsity in the case and this portion of the summary judgment is granted.

The Court orders that the complaint and all cross claims in the case are dismissed in their entirety, without prejudice. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said it is also ordered that the defendant serve a copy of this order to all of the parties within 30 days of the notice of entry.

If you find yourself in a legal situation, whether it be product liability, premises liability or medical malpractice, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine the type of legal action that you may need to take. Our team of lawyers understands the type of situation that you may be in and will work with you to make sure you are acting in your best interest in your legal case. Our offices are conveniently located throughout the NY metropolitan area. You may call us for a free consultation.

The issue is filed on the supreme court for an appeal in the matter whether the infant who was born with birth injuries, has a reason of action against the manufacturers of certain drug which was allegedly ingested by infant’s grandmother while pregnant with infant's mother and allegedly caused certain physical abnormalities in the mother which caused the physical disabilities with the infant as well. The court answered the issue in the negative and dismissed all reasons of action seeking to recover damages for the infant's birth injuries.

The complaint asserts that the infant mother was exposed to the said certain drug when inside the uterus with the direction of a physician. A New York Injur Lawyer said it is further alleged that due to the exposure the infant mother developed some anatomical abnormalities and deformities in her reproductive system which subsequently prevented her from carrying a baby to full term. The infant mother consequently gave birth to the complainant infant. It is further alleged that infant was born prematurely due to her mother’s abnormalities developed as a result of exposure to certain drug and that premature birth caused the infant to develop severe disabilities which will affect her for her entire life.

The parents of the infant initiated the action individually and on behalf of the infant against various manufacturers of the alleged drug. The action asserts negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranty and fraud. Damages are sought for physical and emotional injuries sustained by the mother and physical damages, pain and suffering sustained by the infant. The father asserts a derivative reason of action based upon the inability to have a healthy natural child. The complaint also claimed that if it cannot be proven that the accused manufactured the drug ingested by the infant's grandmother, recovery would be sought on the basis of alternative enterprise and/or market share liability.

After the issue was joined, the accused parties moved to request for decision without trial and claims that since the state does not recognize preconception tort liability, all claims based upon the infant's birth injuries must be dismissed and no recovery could be awarded to the parents for damages based upon emotional distress resulting from the birth of an impaired child. They also request that the failure to identify the manufacturer of the drug ingested by infant's grandmother required dismissal of all claims and that the complainant’s claims were time barred since the revival law under which they were brought is unauthorized.

A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said the mother contends that based upon the foregoing discussion, her strict products liability reason of action should be reinstated. Relying upon previous court’s case decisions, the accused parties contend that the state does not recognize preconception strict products liability. It was held in previous cases that a child who was born with chromosomal damage, allegedly due to her mother's exposure to a toxic substance during the course of employment and prior to conception, had no reason of action. Consequently, the court concluded that although there may be no need for limitation on liability in most strict products liability cases, such a need exists in exposure and ingestion cases, relying largely upon the policy considerations supporting the longstanding Law of Limitations accrual rule which used the date of the injury and not the date of discovery.

The legislature also displayed considerable flexibility in allowing remedy to the allege drug victims. In addition, the Legislature enacted a revival decree which opened a one-year window for actions of injuries caused by allege drug and four other toxic substances that were previously barred under the old date-of-injury rule. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said since the infant and other similarly situated infants already had the benefit of the tolling provisions, the relevance to the case of the Legislature's enactment of the toxic tort law including the revival provision lies in the clear manifestation of deep concern for those injured by toxic substances in general.

Undergoing a prenatal checkup is crucial both in the health of the mother and the baby. Any problem with regard to the well-being of both the mother and the baby can be addressed early on. Doctors and medicines are there to make sure that the baby will come out safe and healthy, but if the opposite happens, skilled lawyers are always ready to serve you in the offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. In addition, our team of NYC Injury Attorneys can offer excellent legal defense.

On 16 April 1973 at approximately 3:30 in the afternoon, natural gas which had escaped from a leak and accumulated in the basement of a building (premises liability) and exploded. The explosion and resulting fire killed someone, seriously injured three people, destroyed a building and caused extensive damage to other buildings of the apartment complex and to personal property of several of the tenants.

Four out of a total of 21 lawsuits commenced, are the subject of this appeal: wrongful death action; two personal injury actions; and the property damage.

In the property damage action, a New York Injury Lawyer said the complaint alleged, inter alia, claims based on negligence and strict products liability against the concerns responsible for the manufacture, assembly and installation of the "gas train", i. e., the various pipes, connections and devices located in the gas equipment room of the building through which the high pressure gas coming from the outside must pass for delivery at a properly reduced low pressure to be used by the tenants in the several garden apartment structures. Of the five defendants in the property damage action, four were manufacturers of components of the gas train – manufacturer of the filters for the removal of dirt and dust from the incoming gas; the manufacturer of the regulator which reduced the high pressure gas to the proper low pressure for use by the tenants; manufacturer of the valve to relieve the excess pressure and the meter to measure the amount of gas used; and, the fabricator and supplier of the gaskets used in the filters. The fifth defendant, purchased the various components and assembled and installed the gas train.
The wrongful death and personal injury complaints named the same five defendants and in addition the owners of the apartment complex. By court order on 19 June 1975 the cases were joined for trial. After the completion of lengthy discovery procedures and numerous pretrial conferences, the court, with agreement of all counsel, directed that the liability phase of the bifurcated trial should commence on March 4, 1978.

The case was settled for the aggregate sum of $791,533.00 by stipulations on March 4 and March 6.

Although they were in accord as to the reasonableness of the amounts of the settlements, an NY Personal Injury Lawyer said the defendants could not agree among themselves as to their proportionate shares of responsibility for payment. Recognizing the possibility that a trial could result in a plaintiffs' verdict that was substantially higher than the settlements, they decided to obviate that risk by collectively making a binding settlement with the plaintiffs with the added proviso that the question of the apportionment of responsibility be held in abeyance for determination by the jury in the property damage action which might come to trial. Two of the defendants, had agreed to fund the settlement in advance of the apportionment determination by putting up the "front" money.

At this point, all parties and the court considered the wrongful death action and personal injury actions to be finally settled with the plaintiffs and terminated as independent, subsisting lawsuits; and the contemplated trial of the property damage action, which the parties had agreed would serve as the vehicle for effectuating their stipulation as to the proportionate responsibility for payment, was to be a normal adversarial trial in which the property damage plaintiffs would seek and might possibly obtain recovery against any one or all of the defendants and in which the plaintiffs expected no cooperation from their adversaries.

On 8 March 1978 the course of the proceedings changed radically where the attorney for the property damage plaintiffs unexpectedly announced that his clients had settled with all the defendants except one for the sum of $450,000.00. The settlement which was pursuant to the General Obligations Law, included a reservation of rights by plaintiffs against the nonsettling defendant. The four settling defendants and plaintiffs then agreed: "that this trial continues with all defendants named, including the ones we've arrived at this agreement with, so that eventually a jury may arrive at an apportionment of liability such as it might be." They further agreed: "that the attorneys for those parties will continue to participate in the trial of that action which remains for the purpose of having apportionment decided and that all of the other bodily injury cases and the wrongful death action have been previously settled with plaintiffs also continue as companion actions."

The nonsettling defendant has asked the court - to limit the participation in the property damage action to the remaining nonsettling defendant and to prohibit the attorneys for the settling defendants from taking part in the trial; and to be relieved from the stipulation made in its agreement to settle the wrongful death and personal injury cases that its share of the settlement be determined by the apportionment made by the jury in the trial of the property damage action.

After resolving other procedural questions and over the objection of the nonsettling defendant, the property damage case proceeded to trial. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said the court had ruled that the jury verdict would determine the remaining liability questions in the property damage action and that the same trial would also serve as the instrument for apportioning the obligations of the six parties to the settlements.

The trial resulted in the assessment of liability against one defendant (the nonsettling defendant). The jury, returning a verdict in the form of answers to special questions, stated in substance that the sole cause of the accident was the nonsettling defendant’s filter, its negligence and its marketing of a defective filter (a defective product to which a product liability arises) were the proximate causes of the accident and that the property damage plaintiffs and the property damage defendants were all free from negligence or from responsibility under any other theory.

The damage phase of the trial was not contested. The jury brought in a verdict of and the court, it will be recalled, had directed that the property damage verdict would also serve as the basis of the apportionment determination for the payment of the wrongful death and personal injury settlements. For this reason the court granted separate judgments over against the nonsettling defendant in these actions as "cross claims" for the amounts advanced plus interest; and, additional allowance plus in costs and disbursements.

The jurors must inevitably have assumed that the plaintiffs and all the "defendants" were adversaries. They would necessarily have expected plaintiffs to put in their strongest case against all the defendants and have concluded, when plaintiffs put in a case only against the nonsettling defendant, that there was no evidence to be offered against the others. But the nonsettling defendant could not explain the reason. It could not reveal that plaintiffs had settled with four defendants under General Obligations Law and that as a result, plaintiffs and the settling defendants were not only not adversaries (as they appeared) but were actually allies in pursuing the same end: a verdict against the nonsettling defendant. The case (by the ground rules established) had to be presented as something it was not a case where plaintiffs had extant claims against all five defendants. The very format for the trial as framed by the court pitted the nonsettling defendant alone against the combined forces of the plaintiffs and the nonsettling defendant’s four co-defendants. At the same time, it prevented the nonsettling defendant from making its strongest argument: that the plaintiffs and the four settling defendants were not in fact adversaries, as they seemed to be, but were united in their interests. Thus, the jury could not scrutinize the evidence in the light of the true self-interests and interrelationships of the parties.

Products marketed cannot endanger the lives of its consumers. With every creation comes great responsibility, that is, to ensure its safe use. Are you a victim of a defective product? It’s time you make the manufacturers liable for the products they put out in the market. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates to know more about the product liabilities of manufacturers and what you can do about it.

The wife came to court for his husband’s injuries and death claims allegedly resulting from breach of warranty and strict liability in an injury. The complainant further claims that the single utility vehicle accident was caused by the failure of one of the car’s steel belted radial tires. The complainants admit that the tire company has answered the sixty-eight inquiries they served upon the tire company.

The accused on the other hand assert that the complaint establishes the tire company’s product liability for the man’s death upon theories of negligence, strict injury liability and breach of warranty in connection with the manufacture and sale of the tire. The complaint also alleges that the man’s death was conscious for an undetermined period of time prior to the car accident and that the tire company is liable upon the same theories for his pain and suffering.

The question is whether the complainant is entitled to a deposition of the accused after having served written inquiries upon the tire company. A New York Injury Lawyer said after commencement of an action, any party may serve upon any other party a written inquiry. A party may not serve written inquiries on another party and also demand a bill of particulars nor, in the case of an action to recover damages for an injury to property or an injury resulting from negligence or death and take a deposition without leave of court.
The law does exclude the use of inquiries in all wrongful death actions regardless of the underlying theory of recovery pleaded. The court recognized the difficulties associated with the language and was careful to confine its decision to the specific issue raised rather than assuming the Legislature's function.

There is still a difference between a personal injury and property damage claims and the wrongful death claim. But now the difference need to choose between inquiries and a deposition which exists in all wrongful death cases without regard to ground, but, with respect to personal injury and property damage cases, the election is necessary only in those based on negligence. A Suffolk County Personal Injury Lawyer said when not so based, the two devices are apparently to be available without a special court order.

When an injured party asserts in a personal injury action both negligence and breach of warranty claims, the courts have been compelled to draw a careful line between the two theories and have permitted the service of inquiries only with respect to the breach of warranty claim notwithstanding that the two claims stem from the same accident.

It is not possible to draw such a line between the personal injury and wrongful death claims in the present case. Realistically, the accused tire company could not be deposed solely regarding the personal injury aspect of the lawsuit without also disclosing matters that are relevant to the wrongful death claim. The matter would be true whenever a wrongful death allegation was present, since the factual underpinnings of such claim necessarily involve all the causes of action asserted. However, the law prohibits the issue from occurring in the absence of granting a prior leave of court.

It was held that since the fourth cause of action was essentially a claim for general damages arising out of the deceased person’s death and the inquiries were properly stricken. In upholding the denial of the complainant’s motion for a protective order for reasons not relevant, the court noted that the law as it read prohibited written inquiries in actions for death or for injury or property damage based on negligence. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said the amended law lifted the absolute prohibition so as to allow written inquiries to be obtained in all actions, upon certain conditions and restrictions, the need to seek leave of court in a wrongful death case.

Therefore, a party in any action involving a wrongful death claim may only proceed by seeking leave of court to serve written interrogatories and depose the same party. The tire company has already responded to sixty-eight inquiries served by the complainant as noted and the complainant did also attend the deposition of the tire company taken by the co-accused. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any special circumstances to support its application to depose the tire company and leave to depose the tire company is denied.

Responsibility is equivalent to life and life without responsibility is similar in throwing someone into an end. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

Stand up comic and television personality Jerry Seinfeld has recently had to see his wife sued on charges of copyright infringement, says a New York Personal Injury Lawyer. Mrs. Seinfeld, who recently published a book entitled, “The Sneaky Chef,” is fighting to keep the case against her from being reinstated.

The book, which is a witty cookbook filled with recipes that are designed to satisfy younger children, is said to have stolen recipes from another book which has very similar recipes. Mrs. Seinfeld’s attorney has defended his client by showcasing the differences between the two books, namely that Mrs. Seinfeld’s book is far more humorous and decidedly lighter fare, whereas the other cookbook is far more serious and is even somewhat lecture prone, making it very different from “The Sneaky Chef.” The style and approach of the two books should outweigh the exact ingredients in a few of the recipes.

The judge hearing the case was making a few jokes of his own, specifically addressing the supposedly innovative nature of some of the recipes. He mentioned that it seemed the idea of making a healthy puree and then hiding it in other recipes may not be so creative after all. No word as of yet as to the outcome of the case, but it appears at present that Mrs. Seinfeld is safe.

If you have case dealing with copyright infringement, or have been injured because of the negligence of another such as in a product liability, or premises liability incident, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We also have offices in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today for an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Ohio announced that it would start using pentobarbital for executions. Ohio is not the only state making the switch from using thiopental. Oklahoma is also using the drug for executions, a New York Injury Lawyer reported.

Ohio usually uses 5 grams of thiopental but they will be using 5 grams of pentobarbital instead. The amount is consisted a large doses. They will only need to use a single dose of the drug.

Pentobarbital is often used in assisted suicides and to induce surgical comas. Many vets also use the drug to put an animal to sleep.

The manufacture for thiopental announced on Friday that it would stop production of the drug. Hospira is the company. The drug is usually made in Italy and recently the government there has prevented the duplication of the drug if the manufacture cannot control what the drug is used for.

Defense lawyer have stated that the use of the drug for executions are unproven and too risky. So far, Oklahoma has used the drug three times for executions, a New York Injury Lawyer.

The thiopental maker, Lundbeck, Inc. is opposed to the use of the drug for executions. They state that it was designed for medical advances only. They said, “Lundbeck is dedicated to saving people’s lives. Clearly, use of [pentobarbital] to carry out the death penalty . . . falls outside its intended use.”

If you have been injured by the negligent actions of another, including by use of a defective product, or because of medical malpractice, speak to our legal team right away. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, we will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries including medical expenses, lost income and for pain and suffering. Call us today for a free consulation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A New York Product Liability Lawyer recently reviewed California Superior Court Case # 30 and revealed that CPAC, a non-profit law clinic, is determined to help both the elderly and the young struggling families who have been affected by bank fraud and are facing homelessness.

"CPAC is trying to accomplish what our government hasn’t. The clinic is fighting a display of alleged bank fraud and lender abuse that was written about in the California Superior Court documents,” he said.

In a recent speech at the Academy Awards, award winner Charles Fergusen said, "Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong."

The New York Injury Lawyer outlined law SB94 in California stating that it basically prohibits private sector professionals, including the honest and effective ones from attempting to help the American consumer. "SB 94 is an absolute prohibition of such prepaid work," he said.

CPAC is currently representing more than 240 individuals in civil lawsuits against banks. This is the first time these types of lawsuits have been placed against lenders due to the high costs of defending themselves against the banks.

"What CPAC Non Profit Law Clinic has done is what we would expect our government to have already done; file a 'Defective Product Liability Lawsuit' against the mortgage industry on behalf of the American people” he explained.

Countless examples of families filing this suit were sited including the story a woman and her four-year-old son.

"This young woman was told by her bank that she was getting a loan modification. According to court documents she states that she did everything her lender requested, for almost a year. Then her lender told her that her loan modification was not approved and her house was instead going to auction." A NYC Personal Lawyer and added that this story is all too typical for man Americans who face this same problem.

"The more people who come forward with their stories, the more these people can really make a difference,” he concluded.

Were you given false promises when you purchased your home? If you or a family member had to foreclose on your home because you were misled, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help. Whether you have a contractual dispute, or have been the victim of a product liability accident, we are here to provide you with the answers you need and a free consultation.

We have offices to serve you throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Staten Island and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

New Yok Injury Lawyers described today how the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a decision regarding a person’s right to sue a vaccine manufacturer for design defects.

The NCVIA of 1986 was passed to protect and held responsible for patients who incur injuries or side effects from vaccinations due to defects in design or improper administering of the vaccine. It was enacted to create a no-fault compensation program in exchange for the tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims and suits.

In 1995, a family tried to file a claim regarding their daughter, who allegedly became disabled after her vaccination. After filing their initial claim, they were denied compensation so the case was removed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The case was still denied and sighted the NCVIA as the reason.

The Supreme Court concurred with the Third Circuit decision based on an analysis of the NCVIA preemption provision. And added that it reads: “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1998, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

The Supreme Court carefully came to their decision based on these three common grounds for liability under product liability law ― defective manufacture, inadequate directions or warnings, and defective design. The Court also pointed out that the preemption provision explicitly explains the manufacturing process (“properly prepared”) and “directions and warnings,” yet it does not mention design defects. This omission “strongly suggests” that design defects are not a basis for liability.

He explained that the Court called these types of defects unavoidable in a case where adequate warnings were rendered and the vaccine was administered properly, and with the right dose. Further the court concluded that the NCVIA provides sufficient protection for patience with its mandated vaccination research and testing.

If you have been injured due to a defective product, or have experienced an injury due to the negligence of another, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance. We will provide you with a free consultation, so call us today.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Wilmington released their new bankruptcy plan on Monday, allowing for an average settlement of $750,000 to $3 million for survivors of priest sexual abuse.

Under this new plan, $74 million dollars will become available to divide among approximately 150 priest-abuse victims who have claims pending. These claims are against the diocese itself or one of the parishes. This is to be compared with a bankruptcy plan filed in September that offered $28 million, stated a source. Because these acts took place on church property, premises liability is in the mix also.

Under the September plan, the average settlement would have been between $285,000 and $489,000. The diocese was able to increase the money available by dissolving a foundation established to benefit itself over 80 years ago.

The new settlement plan, however, has to be approved by the majority of the abuse survivors. The survivors must waive their claims against the parishes, or the diocese will revert back to a variation of the September plan, reported a spokesperson.

This “diocese-only” plan would mean no contributions from the foundation or the parishes, making the pool of divisible money as small as $15 million. Some lawyers claim that the diocese seems to be playing with numbers, spouting out such large figures that don’t seem realistic. The church explained that it will take time to review the lengthy legal document. Parishes in Long Island and New York City are thinking of taking the same approach.

A Bishop with the diocese stated that he hopes the plans will offer injured parties a choice, and that the current suggested settlement plan can be adopted. If it does, the diocese hopes to emerge from bankruptcy sometime in April. Further litigation could postpone that date, running up even higher legal fees against the diocese.

Continue reading "Diocese Raises Monetary Offer" »

Various dentists tell New York Injury Lawyer that fluoride causes dental issues and the U.S. Department of Health has decided to lower the level of fluoride in the drinking water. This announcement was made to combat the many dental issues that have arisen across the nation. The Department of Health and Human Services gave a recommendation that the level of fluoride in water should be 0.7 milligrams per liter of water instead of a range recommendation that exceeded that amount.
Of course, according to the dental profession, the recommended level is not going to be in effect right away. The Lawyer who practices in New York City and Long Island agrees that it is in the best interest of the public to have some time to think about this and to comment on so thirty days is the time period to listen to any complaints.
The Department of Environmental Protection has decided to do their own investigation and research in the meantime and so they will be reviewing the highest degree of fluoride that should be allowed in the water.
A reputable doctor said to a New York Injury Lawyer,” We have waited so long to hear this kind of announcement in support of the right amount of fluoride to be allowed in our water irrigation systems. It will lessen tooth decay and other dental issues.”
This recommendation was reached because of the number of people found to have had too much fluoride consumption and the relation it had with tooth decay and other dental problems.

Continue reading "U.S. Reduction of Fluoride in water" »

A Manhattan Product Liability Lawyer revealed today that both Sunbeam Products, Inc. and the Consumer Product Safety Commission because of a safety hazard have recalled nearly 160,000 wine bottle openers.
“The products were recalled for injury hazards,” he explained and added, “The Company has received 52 reports of wine bottles breaking while using their opener. 22 of those reports said users had lacerations on their hands.”
“I was carefully opening a bottle of wine when the wine bottle broke and I cut my fingers pretty badly,” one consumer said. “I have to say I am impressed with the way Sunbeam has handled this whole thing. They’ve admitted their mistake and are willing to compensate for it. That seems rare these days!”
The product in question is the ‘skybar™ Air Pump Wine Opener’ model number NBSKWA2600, which was sold as a four piece set in several colors including; gray, blue, red or silver and black-colored with a black storage box. ‘skybar, is printed on the side of the product and. model number NBSKWA2600 is printed on the bottom,” said the spokesperson.
He pointed out that the wine bottle openers were sold at QVC retail and stores nationwide, as well as QVC’s televised shopping programs, and online.
Consumers should return these products to any QVC store and will receive a full refund. Those that purchased the wine bottle openers through QVC’s televised programs or at www.qvc.com were sent written instructions on how to get a refund. Those who have not received the instructions in the mail should contact QVC. Those with wine openers not purchased through QVC, should contact Sunbeam for instructions on how to obtain a full refund.
Sunbeam has been extremely cooperative with consumers for these products and added that various phone numbers and websites have been posted for the convenience of their customers.
A spokesperson from Sunbeam in New York City could not be reached for comment but a Manhattan Product Liability Lawyer said they are busy taking phone calls from consumers and are likely managing the various complaints posted on their company website.

Continue reading "Sunbeam Products Inc. recalls 159,000 wine bottle openers this week" »