Impossible-Burger-300x200

Impossible really is nothing—or so a recent class-action lawsuit would have you believe.  Philip Williams is suing Burger King: Williams v Burger King Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 19-24755. He claims a heavily advertised “Impossible Whopper”, which famously does not contain beef, was contaminated by meat when it was prepared on the same surfaces as the traditional beef burgers and consumed by him.  Williams, who ordered his “Impossible Whopper” at an Atlanta Burger King drive-through, claims he would not have paid the above average price, had he known the patty would be “coated in meat by-products.”

His lawsuit, which was filed in Miami federal court, is seeking damages for all United States purchasers of the “Impossible Whopper” and includes an injunction that requires Burger King to “plainly disclose” the preparation surfaces of both “Impossible Whoppers” and beef burgers will be the same.

Burger King declined a comment to Reuters, citing its lack of willingness to comment on pending litigation.  The official Burger King website, describes the “Impossible Whopper” as “100% Whopper, 0% beef” and notes, “for guests looking for a meat-free option, a non-broiler method of preparation is available upon request.”

Wine-Spill
Weird, quirky, and unique legal cases are always the source of intrigue.  Many times, lawyers, law firms, and those familiar with law are confronted with questions regarding individuals’ or their kin’s rare legal issues.  Most legal knowledge found online and through casual sources will be generic and almost definitely not personalized, which makes it tough to find answers regarding these unique cases.  A recent legal battle involving a woman, a country club, and a staff member of the country club highlights the hoops you may have to jump through just to receive proper compensation.

The battle stems from an October 29th lawsuit filed by a female patron of the Alpine Country Club of New Jersey, in which the woman claims a waiter of the club spilled wine on her seemingly irreplaceable $30,000 handbag, while she enjoyed dinner at the club.  The club denied all liability for the incident and even went as far as to sue their own employee (the waiter) for the damages caused to the woman’s handbag.  The handbag, which is typically a relatively inexpensive accessory, was a rare, discontinued Hermès Kelly bag that was gifted to her by her husband for her 30th birthday.

The representation for the woman affected by the spill admitted it was an accident, but also mentioned it was necessary to specify exactly what happened and who did it.  According to documents, the waiter is not mentioned by name, but rather “John Doe.”

Juul1
Cigarettes, once a staple in American society and culture, reached a record low 14% usage rating among adults in 2017, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For comparison, at the height of U.S. adult usage, the CDC reported 42.4% of adults smoked.  Many factors play into this decline, but perhaps the most relevant is the emergence of e-cigarettes or “vapes”.

Vapes, or vaporizers, act as an alternative nicotine option to cigarettes and chewing tobacco.  They work as follows: 1.) A sensor in the device acknowledges an inhalation 2.) The sensor triggers a vaporizing device that heats up the nicotine-containing flavored liquid to such an extreme temperature, it turns into vaporized smoke 3.) The smoker extracts and inhales the vaporized smoke through a mouth piece.

There has been an immense amount of controversy surrounding the flavored liquids; those who oppose them argue that companies like San Francisco-based Juul, and their flavors, target minors and young people.  Juul, who named its vaporizing device “juul” as well, made headlines recently when it pulled its tasty flavors, limiting its production to just “Virginia Tobacco, Classic Tobacco, Mint, and Menthol”.

scooter-pic-3
Once thought to be a fad of the late 1990s and early 2000s, “scooting”, or the act of riding a scooter, has once again become popular among young teens.  It’s also become a popular mode of transportation in cities among business professionals, tourists, and citizens alike. All summer, rural and urban communities alike saw an influx of rentable and purchasable scooters being ridden around their communities, creating yet another obstacle for pedestrians and motorists.  Because of the popularity of scooters, manufacturers have increased production; this increase has resulted in a manufacturer’s recall for a particular model.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that fluidfreeride, the maker of popular kids’ scooters, began recalling their Mercane WideWheel electric kick scooter, due to hazardous malfunctions of the brake caliper, on October 4th, 2019.  When this malfunction occurs, riders have been found to lose the ability to brake, lose control of their scooter, and suffer injuries.  The injuries reported thus far include flesh wounds, deep bodily bruises, and lower body sprains.

The problematic scooters were manufactured in China and sold online at fluidfreeride.com, Amazon.com, and ebay.com for $1,000 to $1,200.  Fluidfreeride has decided to remedy the situation by offering to repair all scooters free of charge.  If you or someone you know has a fluidfreeride scooter, you should immediately stop using it and check to see if yours is one that’s been recalled.  Telltale signs include: scooter is foldable and electric, has “WideWheel” and “Mercane” printed on its platform, made of gray aluminum alloy, and includes a single 500W motor with an 8.8Ah battery or dual 500W motors with a 13.2Ah battery.

Auto Accidents

Tractor Trailers Driving Side By Side
The Facts About Truck Accidents 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ( FMCSA ) makes new laws and regulations regarding our safety all the time. But, regardless of how many laws and regulations are put in place to keep us safe, if we don’t actively do our part to keep ourselves and others safe, none of those things will matter. 

Coke
Mary Edwards Vs Coca-Cola 

Okay, so here’s the case; in August 2013, the plaintiff Mary Edwards was struck by Willie Lee Jr., A Coca-Cola vendor, while she was shopping at Walmart. After amending her original complaint to include Willie Lee Jr. in the lawsuit, Coca-Cola accepted responsibility but denied negligence, and Walmart was later dismissed from the suit. 

So where did the case go wrong.

Ford logo
We have all seen more than our fair share of recalls over the years for all different parts, of all different makes of cars. We have even had a few recalls over the last few years for seatbelts and airbags which are obviously big safety issues for these cars and trucks. We have had engine parts that cause fires. We have had electrical parts that cause fires.  What we haven’t seen in recent memory are seatbelts that can cause fires. There typically are not any parts in a seatbelt that you would even think of that could cause a fire.

Ford has reports of over 23 vehicles having an issue where smoke was generated. The seat-belt pretensioners can malfunction and send sparks out when activated. What is a seatbelt pretensioner? It’s a small part that you likely have never seen in action because it typically only fires when your car is in an accident. Similar to how the airbags in your car will deploy when you hit something, the seatbelt pretensioner will fire when you are in an accident which causes a piston to block the seatbelt from allowing you to move forward.

The National-Highway Traffic Safety Administration received reports of 5 fires caused by the seatbelts, with 3 of those leading to the car being engulfed in flames.

Distracted driving is one of the leading causes of avoidable motor vehicle accidents.  The most common form of distraction behind the wheel is cell-phone use while driving.  This is why so many states have enacted laws to cite those that drive while using their cell phone in a hope to decrease distracted driving accidents.

From 2016 to 2017, distracted driving-related citations increased by 52% in Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania law enforcement officials issued 5,054 distracted driving citations in 2017, up from 3,336 citations in 2016. 15,542 citations have been issued in Pennsylvania since 2013.

According to the NHTSA, 3,477 people were killed and 391,000 were injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in 2015.  They estimate that around 660,000 drivers are using an electronic device while driving daily.

Previous studies have shown that properly installed rear-facing car seats will protect children in front end and side impact accidents.  However, a new study performed at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center shows that rear-facing car seats are also effective in protecting children in a rear end accident. 080924-F-4042M-029

According to the university, the research team performed crash tests with multiple rear-facing car seats and found all the seats were effective in absorbing the force of the crash and controlling the child when properly installed.  The study was authored by Julie Mansfield who is a Research Engineer for the Injury Biomechanics Research Center at The Ohio State University College of Medicine.

Pennsylvania law requires that children under the age of 2 must be secured in a rear-facing car seat until the child outgrows the maximum weight and height limits designated by the car seat manufacturer.