Law Students

At the Intersection of ?Dad? and ?Law Student.?

By Dr. Bombay

So Goody and I took His Majesty over to the mall today. The goals were simple: exploit the collapse of the economy for low prices (generally), and find a birthday present for her (specifically). But with the specter of law school haunting me wherever I go, even such pleasantly banal endeavors become fodder for a discussion of product liability.

Some background, mercantile. The MacLaren Company makes baby things, most notably a line of exceedingly popular strollers.  These run the gamut from those available at mass market retailers to models branded for both Kate Spade and Juicy Couture. These can be purchased to the extent that you wish to have luxury goods covered in biological excretions. 

An update, governmental. Last Monday, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of one million MacLaren Strollers made within the last ten years.  These strollers are commonly referred to as ?umbrella strollers? for their folding mechanism and small profile when closed, making them ubiquitous in urban areas. The convenience is offset however, as they have a nasty tendency to lop off little tykes fingers if caught in the hinge (12 reported cases to date).  MacLaren evidently knew this since 2004 but failed to report it to the CPSC.  This delay was compounded by the company?s website crashing as millions of owner?s sought the protective covers the company was giving away.  The damage ? to my mind ? seems limitless.  As Pete Blackshaw, a consultant from Nielsen made in an article in Time “Anything relative to child safety tends to be off-the-charts viral.? indeed. 

All this led me to chatting ? at some length ? with a fellow father at Nordstrom?s while both of our wives were trying on jeans, about possible torts related to the stroller his 9 month old was napping in. He had already ordered the covers, and had modified the position of the seat to prevent any chance of interaction between child and fingers. Both of us agreed that if MacLaren knew that the product had a risk of ?traumatic amputation? and did nothing to modify the product or alert people to the risk, the end might be nigh.

And with that, back to the study of Chapter 11, which seems oddly appropriate for the good people at MacLaren.

Full post as published by Fight The Hypo on November 15, 2009 (boomark / email).