Toasters Recalled for Fire Hazards Before Product Liability Claims Arise

Hamilton Beach Brands is a maker of home appliances such as blenders, mixers, toasters, irons and air purifiers and commercial restaurant equipments marketed mainly in the US, Canada and Mexico since 1910.

It’s been more than a century since they built their name as a maker of appliances. Therefore, Hamilton Beach Brands would definitely not allow any single product defect to ruin their reputation.

However, after the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) found out that a Hamilton Beach Brands’ product presents a fire hazard to consumers, they immediately announced for a nationwide product recall.

The said product being recalled is the Hamilton Beach Brands’ classic chrome 2-slice toaster. The CPSC discovered that when the toaster is plugged into an outlet, the heating mechanism starts to heat up even though the toaster is still technically off. Model 2602 toasters are involved in the said product recall.

Consumers can check their Hamilton Beach Brands’ toaster model number printed at the bottom of the toaster. The CPSC further described the full detail of the Hamilton Beach product recall in a report.

Before claims for product liability arise, Hamilton Beach Brands has advised the consumers to contact them for instructions on how to obtain a replacement toaster. This is will further protect their long-established name and hard earned reputation.

The Hamilton Beach Brands provided their contact details regarding the said product recall. Consumers can call Hamilton Beach at (800) 576-6600 anytime or they may visit their website at www.hamiltonbeach.com.

The manufacturing companies have their lawful obligation regarding the quality of their product. If the Hamilton Beach Brands would not cooperate with the product recall ordered by the CPSC, a product liability claim can be filed by the consumers against the companies, producers or manufacturers if ever personal injuries arise due to negligence and marketing of sub-standard products or services.

Share |

Paid Family and Medical Leave Act Needs More Outreach Program

Not long time ago, California passed into law the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act. This made California the first US state to make family and medical leaves paid and available to almost every private worker. Everybody anticipated that this pioneering legalization would provide access to paid leave for family care giving and illness for large sectors of the employment industry – most specifically the minimum wage earners since they usually have little or no access to paid family or medical leaves.

A recent study conducted by both the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and the City University of New York (CUNY) showed that 43 percent or nearly half of California workers had seen, read or heard about the Paid Leave (PFL) Program. It is a significant improvement from the 30 percent who knew about the PFL in a 2003 survey.

The increase of awareness over the past years appears to be overwhelming, especially among women. This is probably a result of the federal government providing notice to new mothers about the said program.

However, it is noticeable that the awareness for the said program is lowest among the workers who need it most – particularly those with lower wages or less-educated workers.

The poll results absolutely showed that there is a dire need for more outreach programs that needs to be established to inform the public about one of their best privileges that they have been missing. A good way to do so is to make advertisements just like what other government agencies are doing to educate the people.

As means to reach out to workers, the federal government plans to provide doctors with brochures that will help explain the information they need about the paid Family and Medical Leave Act. The brochures are displayed in their offices or clinics to help the government spread the good news to people from all walks of life.

Due to lack of outreach programs about this new law, the modified Family and Medical Leave Act done by the government in favor of the workers seem to lose its significant value. Apparently, all efforts in passing the said bill are being wasted due to the public’s lack of awareness.

Share |

$500 Thousand Dollar Personal Injury Claim Granted to a Car Accident Victim

After the 2006 car accident that occurred last 2006. Barabara Hooper finally achieved the compensation that she has waited for several years.

Finally, the Supreme Court decision granting Hooper for her compensation claim was released. Justice Duncan McMeekin rendered the said decision and Hooper is now entitled for a $500 thousand dollar compensation claim.

Hooper, now 59 – year old sued the driver of the vehicle who rear ended her Toyota Land Cruiser last August, 2006 as she was about to make a left turn to Bruce Highway.

In her lawsuit, Hooper named Anthony Clifford King – the driver of the vehicle and the Suncorp Metway Insurance for personal injury claims.

Justice McMeekin said that the driver admitted his liability but he was still required to assess the damages. He noted that the parties widely differ in their submissions. The accused contended for a $54,550 while the complainant was claiming for an $809,383.55 award.

That is a big difference actually and perhaps this was one of the factors which made Hooper’s case complicated.

He significantly said that the plaintiff’s argument was Hooper’s claims for economic loss and the care provision must be assessed at a justly minimal level due to the effect that pre-existing degenerative change of the lumbar would have had on her if the accident did not occurred.

Justice McMeekin found Hooper as an honest and sincere person in her representation. Hooper’s family and friends supported her in her claims as well with her disabilities.

In all types of misfortune, a personal injury lawyer should always be collaborated with it. Some personal injury cases are difficult to handle or to manage. Hooper was very fortunate for winning her personal injury claims. After a series of examinations and reviews of evidences for over several years, at least she still managed to keep her determination in pursuing the case.

Share |

A Story of a Police Dog Killed in an Animal Attack During a Retrieval Operation

On an early morning of December 12, the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office received a phone call asking for a rescue.

The caller is reporting about a suicidal man who slit his own wrist and ran into the woods holding his knives.

The police officers together with a Bloodhound dog, named Maggie, immediately responded to the scene right after the phone call.


During the retrieval operation, Maggie the Bloodhound was attacked by another dog which caused her death. She died from the injuries she suffered from that animal attack.

According to Lt. Patrick Sheridan, Maggie served the Louisa County Sheriff’s office for six years until her last breath; she dedicated her life to protect the citizens of Virginia. In Maggie’s entire career, she responded to 343 calls for duty and assisted in investigations in many jurisdictions. He also assisted the Virginia State Police as well as the FBI.

News said that the pit bull that attacked Maggie is now under the custody of Louisa County Animal Control.

Bloodhound is a large breed of dog. It is best for hunting deer and wild boar. It was bred particularly to track human beings. It is a “scenthound”, meaning they track using their sense of smell. It is an opposite of the “sighthound” which uses their sense of sight for tracking. It became well known for its ability to recognize human odors even days later or even over great distances.

Bloodhound dog is indeed a perfect buddy for police hunting for escaped convicts, missing people, lost children among others.


Who would have ever thought that a very brave police dog that had been involved in many police operations will just end her heroic career in an animal attack? Maggie can be considered as a heroine of Louisa County for dying in her line of duty. It’s a Job well done Maggie.

Share |

Kidnapper Sues Hostages for Breach of Contract

Two years after the hostage incident that happened last September, 2009 inside the house of Jared and Lindsay Rowley, the suspect is now suing his two for breach of contract.

The Kansas couple was held hostage by Jesse Dimmick of Aurora, Colorado last 2009. Due to the hostage incident, Dimmick was shot at his back by a police resulting to serious physical injury which almost killed him. His hospital bills reached $160,000 which he cannot pay in any way.

During the time of the said hostage incident, the involved couple was newlywed. The couple stated that Dimmick invaded their house which brought emotional distress to both of them. They filed murder case and other charges to the suspect which brought him now in jail. He was sentenced with 11 years of imprisonment.

As a counter complaint to the couple’s lawsuit, Dimmick filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the Rowley couple. Allegedly, the couple violated their oral contract to cover up his crime in exchange for money.

The Rowley couple affirms that there was no such agreement and if there was any, it was null and void due to lack of legality.

In his lawsuit filed last month, Dimmick is claiming for a $235,000 for a breach of contract. He claims that he suffered a gunshot at his back that almost killed him and brought him into hospital indebtedness.

According to a news report at USA Today, the police officer who shot Dimmick said that his riffle accidentally discharged during the hostage incident.

Dimmick also named the City of Topeka in his breach of contract lawsuit, seeking for $75,000.

The couple has filed a motion to dismiss Dimmick’s lawsuit and apparently the judge is considering dismissing the same.

It’s very absurd that the hostage suspect still have the guts to file for a breach of contract lawsuit. This is not a kind of business wherein if one does not obey what has been set into the agreement or terms of condition, the other one can file for a breach of contract. The reality is, he committed an actual crime. Therefore, he deserves to be penalized and not to let him spin the law.

Share |

Atlanta Construction Site Accident Kills Two Workers

A construction site accident that occurred last December 1 at the Dallas Street, Atlanta has left two workers dead. The victims were identified as Rigoberto Lopez, 29, from Marietta, Georgia and Karlos Turner, 42, from Dallas, Texas.

Reports said that the two men were stuck while working on an 80-foot lift which was extended to a height of 40 feet on the exterior of Amli Old 4th Ward Apartment Homes. The lift fell onto the concrete path across the street as the men were trying to move it.

The victims were rushed to the hospital but were pronounced dead shortly after they arrived. Findings of the doctors show that Lopez and Turner sustained fatal injuries.
Allegedly, a machine malfunction was seen as a factor to the accident.

An investigation regarding the fatal construction site accident is still in progress. However, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is still expected to conduct an investigation.

In some cases of construction site accidents, the employers are held accountable. The construction company may possibly face construction liability lawsuit once the outcome of the investigation shows that they failed to follow the restrictions and safety policies.

Share |

American Airlines Sued in Passenger’s Death Caused by Food Poisoning

In Miami, an American Airline is currently facing charges for the death of one of its passengers from its flight way back on May, 18, 2011.

Allegedly, the 73 – year old man died aboard on one of the airlines’ flight from Barcelona to New York after eating a contaminated chicken meal.

In a lawsuit filed by the surviving wife and daughter of the decedent, they are claiming that the airline’s catering company failed to properly maintain or prepare the airline passenger’s food. Allegedly, Cortes was served with a chicken meal contaminated with deadly bacteria – Clostridium perfringens.

Clostridium perfringens is a kind of bacteria which is ever present and can be found as a common component of a decaying vegetation, marine sediment, intestinal tract of a human, insects, soil and other vertebrates. It is the third most common cause of food poisoning in the US and the UK.

Cortes’ wife and daughter stated that after landing in New York, Cortes felt a severe stomach pain, sudden thirst and other clear external indication of serious physical illness.

As the family boarded for their next flight from New York to Miami, Cortes’ condition grew worse. Along their Miami bound flight, Cortes was already suffering nausea, dyspnea and a cardiac event. The flight made an emergency landing at Norfolk, Virginia but it was too late for Cortes’ medical treatment because he was declared dead in Virginia.

In Cortes’ family lawsuit, they also claim that the airlines should not have allowed Cortes to board the Miami flight without securing medical attention first from the airline’s medical team.

The American Airlines’ spokesperson said the airlines company would not comment on the pending lawsuit. On the other hand, the airline catering company mentioned in the lawsuit had also given their statement saying that the company did not cater for that flight and that they have been working to have the lawsuit dismissed.

Apparently, both the airline company and the airline catering company are denying their accountability on the said incident. In most common airplane accidents in US, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) often conducts the investigation. However, this is one of a kind incident. In this case, a very good and excellent attorney services is what Cortes’ family should have.

Share |