Maine Injury Lawyer Blog

May 20, 2012

Accidents in Bangor and Elsewhere Down, Not for Motorcyclists

The number of fatal motorcycle accidents in Portland and elsewhere haven’t let up in two years now. That’s surprising a lot of officials because the number of overall motor vehicle accident fatalities is sitting at its lowest level since 1949, according to the Motorcyclist.

As a matter of fact, there were 26 states that reported increases in their number of motorcyclist fatalities in 2011. Officials are trying to pinpoint why these kinds of accidents haven’t decreased, but they’re coming up with a lot of excuses. The truth of the matter is that motorists, of all kinds, need to be more cautious on our roadways and work together to help make summer travel safer for everyone.”While the MSF applauds the governors and policymakers applying motorcycle-related safety countermeasures and supporting rider training programs, there is still much to be done to improve motorcyclist safety,” said MSF President Tim Buche.

Our Portland accident lawyers understand that nearly 60 percent of all fatal motorcycle accidents are the result of multi-vehicle accidents. Motorcycle riders are urged to take the proper safety precautions, like wearing a helmet. We also urge motorists to be on the lookout for our motorcycle friends. The increase illustrates we’ve got to do something to alter this trend somehow because all of the recent motorcycle safety campaigns don’t seem to be working.

Officials are brainstorming why these accidents haven’t decreased. They’re remaining all too common on our roadways. According to U. . NEWS, there were close to 5,000 motorcyclist fatalities in each of 2010 and 2011. Yet during this time most other accident stats decreased.

Motorcyclist Fatalities – Causes for Increase:

-The improving economy. With more spare funds, officials believe that more motorists are looking for a little sleeker way to get around — a motorcycle.

-The high gas prices. Motorcycles get some of the best gas mileage around!

-The lack of strict motorcycle helmet laws. There are only 19 states across the country that require everyone on a motorcycle to wear a helmet. Currently, there are five states that are looking to repeal the law.

The motorcycle helmet law in the state of Maine is one of the most relaxed in the country. Only motorcycle riders under the age of 18-years-old are required to wear a helmet, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Riders are asked to practice their own responsibility and to wear a helmet during every ride. It really can be the difference between life and death.

Motorcycle deaths remains as one of the few areas in highway safety in which progress has yet to be seen.

“These fatality figures represent real people — they are family, friends and neighbors,”ssaid Troy Costales, GHSA chairman.

May 15, 2012

Utility Negligence in Bangor Car Accidents

by Peter Thompson & Associates

If you have been in a car accident with a stable object, you may think you cannot recover damages from any other party. But that is not an accurate assessment in allscases.If you have been injured because of a Bangor car accident which was caused by the negligent maintenance of property, you may feel overwhelmed with the thought of how you will collect damages. Having an experienced Bangor injury attorney can give you the peace of mind you need in your case.

Seals v. Morris County is a case arising from a car accident. Seals (plaintiff) was driving his pickup truck on a road in Morris County New Jersey early in the morning. There was snow on the ground, and when the plaintiff tried to step on his brakes, the car continued downhill. The car hit an electric utility pole that was placed several feet from the side of the road. Plaintiff sustained injuries for which he sought damages.

Plaintiff sued Morris County for negligent maintenance of the road he was traveling on, and Jersey Central Power and Light (Electric Co.) for its alleged negligent placement of the electric pole.

The main issues in this case were two-fold. First, the court analyzed whether an electric company could be held liable for negligently placing an electric pole along a public highway. Secondly, whether a county is entitled to claim sovereign immunity where the county was negligent.

This electric pole was placed on county property. The Electric Co. had placed the pole there and had not received any objection to the pole’s placement from the county. There had been previous car accidents that occurred involving the pole which the Electric Co. was made aware of. However, it was company policy at the Electric Co. that the only time it moved electric poles was at the request of the county where the pole is located.

Although the pole was located on county property, the county argued that because there was no Morris County police, the county had no notice that these accidents were occurring there because the municipal police did not notify them. The county further argued that it had not given consent to have that pole placed there, although it had been there for over thirty years.

The Electric Co. argued that although the county had been silent as to the placement of the pole, this silence should be considered assent; thus rendering the Electric Co. immune from the imposition of liability. This argument hinged on state statute that indicates that where a utility company has maintained a utility pole in the same location for ten years, the owner of the land where the pole is placed is presumed to have consented to this placement.

With both the Electric Co. and the county arguing that the other should be held liable under negligence, the court was set decide the matter. Through application of state statute and New Jersey case law, this court held that where a government entity directs a utility company to where utility poles should be placed the utility company is immune from liability. However, the facts of this case indicate that the County had been silent as to the placement of this offending pole thus, conferring ordinary negligence to both the county and the Electric Co.

Thus the rule established in this case is that where a utility company negligently places or maintains an electric pole causing an unreasonable and unnecessary danger to drivers traveling on that road, the utility company can be held liable.

Through this court decision it is seen that the only way a utility company can be immune from liability is where it negligent acts were a result of a direction from a governmental entity.

The issue of whether the county is immune from liability was left to the lower court to determine on remand.

May 5, 2012

The Role of Causation in Bangor Personal Injury Cases: McIlroy v. Gibson

by Peter Thompson & Associates

All accidents are caused by something; however, it is often difficult to establish the cause of an accident after it has occurred and when you were not involved.A recent Maine motorcycle accident case delves into the idea of speculation in the determination of causation in personal injury cases.

McIlroy v. Gibson’s Apple Orchard exemplified the importance of having an experienced Bangor personal injury attorney helping you prove the cause of your recent accident case.

This case began where Charlotte Small (Small) was driving his car through an intersection where he had the right of way. There was a very large sign on the side of the road causing Small to move her vehicle in order to have an unobstructed view of the road. McIlroy (plaintiff) was riding his motorcycle when he saw Small move slightly, thus he maneuvered in an attempt to prevent a collision. Small lost control of his motorcycle. Plaintiff did not collide with Small or any other vehicles but he was seriously injured when his motorcycle turned over.

The issue in this case became what caused the accident. Causation is an integral part of a personal injury claim. Most motorcycle accident cases fall under personal injury, and in order to prove a personal injury case the elements of negligence must be proved by the plaintiff. Negligence is a civil wrong where a party fails to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. There is no requirement that the plaintiff prove that the defendant acted with intent; however, the plaintiff must show the defendant acted carelessly or recklessly.

Negligence consists of four elements that must be proved by the preponderance of the evidence. First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a specific duty of care. Next, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant breached this required duty of care. Then, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Lastly, the plaintiff must show damages.

In McIlroy, Small argued that because he had the right of way and did not collide with the plaintiff, he should not be held liable for the injuries the plaintiff sustained. Thus, plaintiff sued Gibson’s Apple Orchard (defendant).

Defendant had placed an eight-foot-square sign advertising their location near the intersection where the plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff argued that because of the size and location of the sign, Small had to sway into plaintiff’s lane in order to have an unobstructed view of the road. Thus, plaintiff said the defendants’ sign was the “proximate cause” of the plaintiff’s accident and injuries.

Proximate cause is where the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant could have reasonably foreseen the plaintiff sustaining injuries as a result of defendant’s carelessness.

In the alternative, the plaintiff argued that because of the size and placement of the sign Small had to maneuver around the sign. This maneuver made plaintiff think that Small was about to pull his vehicle in front and cause a collision, leading plaintiff to lose control of his motorcycle.
This court found that there was evidence to show that the location of the defendant’s sign could have caused the damages plaintiff suffered. Because a reasonable jury could have found this link in causation, the court held that the case needed to be presented to a jury for a determination of damages owed to the plaintiff.

April 25, 2012

What Type of Insurance Benefits are You Entitled to in Your Personal Injury Case?sCasale v. Cranston Answers

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Casale v. City of Cranston is a recent Rhode Island case dealing with issues surrounding insurance coverage and injured on duty benefits.If you have been involved in a car accident in Bangor, it is important to know what insurance proceeds and benefits you are entitled to. Having an experienced Bangor injury attorney can give you the award you deserve to get the medical help you need.

James Casale (Casale or plaintiff) was employed by the City of Cranston (City) as a firefighter. After receiving notification of an emergency, plaintiff was driving a firefighter emergency vehicle to the location of the call. In transit, the emergency vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by an uninsured driver. This uninsured driver was driving the vehicle negligently, and caused the accident with the emergency vehicle being driven by plaintiff.
As a result of this accident, plaintiff suffered serious injuries which caused him to be unable to perform crucial job related activities for several months. Because plaintiff had been injured while on duty, the city gave him injured-on-duty (IOD) benefits. While receiving these IOD benefits, plaintiff began a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits with his insurance company, Amica Mutual Insurance Company (Amica). This dispute between the plaintiff and the City is a result this plaintiff’s claim with Amica.

Uninsured motorist coverage is a type of insurance benefits offered when you buy your automobile insurance. This type of coverage provides protection if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. Because you cannot collect benefits from an uninsured driver, your insurance company will compensate you. This type of coverage is not standard in every state; however, it is critical to speak with your insurance representative to discuss the option of purchasing this coverage.

In this case, the plaintiff had a UM policy for $100,000. Because the City had already paid the plaintiff a significant amount in IOD benefits, Amica subtracted that amount from the policy limit of $100,000 and gave plaintiff the difference. Upon finding out about this claim, the city argued that the plaintiff was required to pay it back the amount they paid in IOD benefits. Plaintiff countered this argument by claiming that the city was not entitled to this reimbursement and asked the court to make a judicial determination of this.

The City acknowledged that the plaintiff was injured while he was performing his job duties and that he rightfully obtained IOD benefits from the city. However, the city countered the plaintiff’s argument stating that because the plaintiff had received UM benefits from Amica, the city should be reimbursed consistent with a state statute regarding liability to third persons. States have adopted statutes to protect liable parties from situations where the injured victim collects double the damages.

The city reasoned that Amica should be seen as “the person liable to pay damages” under the statute governing liability of third persons for damages. They argued that just as the insurance company steps in the shoes of the uninsured driver and pays benefits to their insured, the insurance company should be treated as the uninsured driver. And the statute the city pointed to stated that where the uninsured driver makes payments to the injured victim, the insurance company is reimbursed for any over-payments.

The lower court found in favor of the plaintiff and refused to award the city with the reimbursement they asked for. This court heard the appeal from the lower court’s decision and found in favor of the plaintiff finding that the City of Cranston was not entitled to reimbursements from the proceeds of plaintiff’s UM benefits.

April 20, 2012

The Court in McCain v. Town of North Providence Says Your Job Title Makes a Difference in Bangor Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Firefighters are one of the most crucial components of our society today. But when safety personnel are injured on the job, statute says they cannot collect benefits under workers’ compensation. They must receive benefits through the states “injured on duty statute.”If you have questions surrounding the benefits you are entitled to in your Bangor workers’ compensation case, our experienced Bangor injury attorneys can help.
McCain v. Town of North Providence is a case that tackles questions surrounding the Rhode Island’s “injured on duty statute.”sThe mayor’s chief of staff in 2001 wrote a memorandum to the town’s fire chief indicating that the town had hired McCain (plaintiff) as a 3rd Class Firefighter. The fire chief then issued an order which formalized this appointment of McCain. Subsequently, McCain received an identification card where he was considered a technician and a member of the town fire department. As a technician or lineman, plaintiff was not considered to be part of the operations division, as he was not obligated to attend fire department training. Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining communication equipment, aiding inspectors from the Fire Prevention Division, and assisting the fire chief in any departmental issue.

Plaintiff was a member of the AFL-CIO (the union) which was exclusively responsible for bargaining for all fire department employees. The union had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the fire department for which all employees of the fire department were subject to.

Five years after he was initially hired, plaintiff was putting a ladder back on a bucket truck when he lost balance and struck his head on a bucket apparatus. Because putting the ladder away was part of plaintiff’s job duties, he was considered to be injured in the line of duty. This classification resulted in the plaintiff receiving injured-on-duty (IOD) benefit payments as of the date of injury in addition to his salary payments. After three years of making these IOD and salary payments the town stopped payments. The town never gave the plaintiff notice and did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Town argued that because plaintiff was not a “sworn firefighter” they had been mistakenly sending these IOD payments to plaintiff. Basically, there was a difference between the IOD benefits and the workers’ compensation related injury benefits.

Plaintiff asked the court to enter a declaratory judgment stating that he was a firefighter under the statutory definition of said title. Additionally, plaintiff wanted the IOD payments to resume.

This court looked to interpretation of the statute to determine whether the plaintiff was considered a firefighter and whether he should be entitled to the IOD benefits. When interpreting statute the court looks to the intent of the legislature in codifying the statute. In this case, the IOD statute was to provide a greater level of benefits to public employees who are injured during work-related activities where their jobs are often dangerous. IOD statutes are seen as a replacement to workers’ compensation in that it provides greater protection to police officers and firefighters. It is noted further that the Workers’ Compensation Act excludes police officers and firefighters from collecting benefits under that act as the legislature encourages states to enact IOD statutes.

The applicable statute says that anyone employed as a member of the fire department is considered a firefighter by the statute. Because the language in the statute is so clear, the court explains that they cannot hold counter to the statute’s clear intent.

Because the statute defines firefighter in such a broad sense, the plaintiff was considered a firefighter who was injured on duty; therefore, IOD benefits should be paid.

April 9, 2012

Bangor Injury Cases: Court in Himmelstein v. Windsor Discusses Liabilty

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Roads are a critical component of our daily lives. We rush along and often take for granted that there will not be any obstructions on the roads we rely on. But have you ever wondered why you have this perception?The law imposes specific duties of care on states and cities. If you have been injured in a bicycle accident in Bangor, it may have been because of the failure of your state or municipality to maintain the streets.

Our experienced Bangor injury attorneys understand that when you have been injured, your main concern should be getting better. Let us concentrate on getting you the justice you are entitled to while you concentrate on recovering from your injuries.

Himmelstein v. Town of Windsor is a highway defect case that arose because the plaintiff was in a bicycle collision with a police radar trailer that was parked on the side of the road. The main question in this case was whether a town can be held liable for injuries the plaintiff suffered as a result of a defect in a state road. There was significant confusion surrounding municipal and state liability, thus the court defined several applicable legal doctrines.

Himmelstein (“Plaintiff”) was riding a bicycle in heavy traffic. This traffic caused the plaintiff to ride onto the outer part of the road, in between the fog line and the curb. On this portion of the road, the city police department had a radar trailer stationed. Plaintiff hit the radar trailer and suffered several physical injuries and economic damages. Because of these injuries and damages, plaintiff sued the town claiming that because they breached their statutory duty of care, the town acted negligently. Plaintiff argued that in the alternative to negligence, the town should be held liable under nuisance.

Negligence is a reason for the imposition of liability where the defendant has a specified duty of care. Statute is often created to impose a duty of care on specific parties. This duty imposed by statute is called a statutory duty of care. In a negligence claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the four elements of negligence. These elements are:sthe defendant has a duty of care, the defendant breached their duty, the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages, and the plaintiff must prove damages.

Conversely, nuisance is a principal of civil liability imposed where there is an intrusion on an individual’s rights to be free from injury or distress. Nuisance is comprised of two classifications:sprivate nuisance and public nuisance. Private nuisance is where a property owner or leaseholder is obstructed from their right of quiet enjoyment of property. In order to assert a claim under this theory of private nuisance, the plaintiff is required to have a legal interest in the land that is affected by the intrusion of a third party which causes some type of damage to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, public nuisance is where the acts or omissions of party causes damage or inconvenience to the public at large. This is most commonly seen in the areas of public health, safety, peace and convenience.

In Himmelstein, plaintiff argued that his injuries were the result of the placement of the radar trailer , which should be considered a highway defect. Because of this classification as a highway defect, plaintiff argued that the town created this unsafe condition thus imputing liability onto the town. Furthermore, plaintiff argued that the town had failed to comply with their statutory duty of care when they did not warn the public that the radar trailer was on the side of the road. It was because of this failure to comply with their duty, plaintiff was injured and suffered damages.

Conversely, the town argued that the road where the collision occurred was a state highway and the town is not liable for the maintenance of state highways. Because this was a state highway, the town argued that they had no duty to warn of any unsafe conditions or make the road safe.

Because the town cannot be held liable for the lack of warning and maintenance of a state road, the court entered summary judgment for the town. However, the court did explain that the plaintiff could sue the state for their failure to warn the public of the potential dangers associated with the placement of this police radar trailer.

This case is an example of how important it is to identify the proper parties in your Bangor personal injury case.

April 6, 2012

Teens Risks High for Car Accidents in Bangor and Elsewhere

by Peter Thompson & Associates

To help reduce the risks of car accidents in Bangor and elsewhere, we’ll be using the entire month of April to raise awareness about National Distracted Driving Awareness Month. While this month-long campaign is used to urge drivers of all ages to curb the distractions behind the wheel, we’re going to focus this effort on teenage drivers. According to a recent study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, teenage drivers are most likely to use cell phones, text messaging devices and other electronic devices behind the wheel in Bangor and elsewhere. The study even took it a step further and determined that it’s the teenage girls who are most likely to engage in distractions, twice as likely as male teen drivers of the same age group in fact, according to Consumer Reports.Our Bangor injury attorneys understand that more than 3,000 people were killed on roadways across the U. . in 2010 because of distracted drivers. As a matter of fact, officials estimate that about a quarter of all auto accidents involve a distracted driver. These kinds of risks are much higher for teenage drivers, experts say. The recent study, conducted by AAA, looked at in-car video from more than 50 families in North Carolina and took notes on the novice drivers and their driving behaviors. Researchers noted distractions and how they affected driving behaviors. Texting and talking were the two top causes of distraction for these young drivers — found in nearly 10 percent of the video. Some of the results from these distractions included rapid acceleration, jerky braking and swerving. Unfortunately, the distractions didn’t stop at talking and texting. These young drivers were also commonly witnessed eating, drinking, grooming and adjusting controls behind the wheel. These actions were observed in nearly 20 percent of the video. All of these distractions were more common among female drivers. These drivers didn’t grow wiser with age either. Video footage determined that the older the teens got, the more likely they were to engage in dangerous distractions behind the wheel. Researchers believe that they did this because they eventually got more comfortable behind the wheel, ultimately feeling safer even as they were engaging in more dangerous driving behavior. Although girls were witnessed engaging in more kinds of distractions, it’s clear that both boys are girls are facing problems in the driver’s seat. Car accidents are a very serious threat to our teenagers. Car accidents continue to be the number one cause of death for this age group. In recognition of National Distracted Driving Awareness Month 2012, sit down with the teen driver in your family and talk to them about the dangers and the risks that are associated with this dangerous driving behavior. Your talk could help to save their life. Believe it or not, parents have been proven to be some of the most influential people in the lives of teenage drivers. Continue reading

March 29, 2012

Work Injury Victims’ Compensation Could Soon Be Capped

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Massachusetts lawmakers are mulling whether to change the state’s workers’ compensation laws – a move that those who have suffered workplace injuries in Bangor staunchly oppose.

Our Bangor personal injury attorneys are closely following the developments surrounding legislative request 2781, which would cap the amount of time people can receive workers’ compensation claims for partial but permanent injury to less than 12 years. As of right now, certain types of injury claims are limited to a cap of 10 years, though the most serious have no cap at all.

The portion of the proposal that is causing the greatest stir is that dealing with permanent, partial injury. This would not be a case in which you, say, broke your leg on the job and you are going to be receiving workers’ compensation benefits until it heals, and then you return to work. Instead, these are for cases in which you have suffered an injury on the job that is going to impact you forever. So instead of breaking a limb, say you lost one. Or, maybe your back has been permanently injured.

Workers’ compensation laws are fairly complicated, but they basically ensure that the 25 percent of people who have suffered the most serious permanent, partial injury are going to get benefits for life. The other 75 percent have a 10-year cap. Legislative request 2781 would change that.

Among those testifying at a recent hearing:

A nurse who fell and seriously injured her back while treating a patient, leaving her unable to continue working in her field;
An electrician who was jolted with more than 200,000 volts of electricity, rendering him disabled;
The widow of a construction worker whose boss accidentally backed over him with a truck.

Each of these individuals is very much against the changes, though any alteration of the law thankfully would not impact those who are already getting workers’ compensation benefits.

Those who proposed the bill say the state’s decades-old workers’ compensation system is need of an overhaul. They say consistency is required because the law the way it is now is strange in that a person with a certain injury might not qualify for lifetime benefits one year, but someone with the exact same injury would the next. It would all depend on what kinds of other injuries there were in the state that year.

Payouts for these permanent, partial injuries are generally higher here – about $185,000 annually – than the national average – which is about $90,000 a year. However, they don’t represent a large portion of overall workers’ compensation claims in the state. For example, as the Bangor Daily News reported, there were about 2,200 workers’ compensation claims in the state in 2010, each of those averaging about 13 weeks. That was down a great deal from 1993, when there were more than 7,100 claims that generally spanned about 33 weeks.

March 25, 2012

Bangor Spinal Cord Injury Victims Work Hard to Lead Normal Lives

by Peter Thompson & Associates

A Pastor from Lewiston is proving that it is possible to overcome insurmountable odds to thrive after a Bangor spinal cord injury – though that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the experience of a Bangor personal injury attorney who will fight for fair compensation.

According to The Sun Journal, the pastor, who goes by the name “Wally,” is preparing to return to the pulpit of his Methodist Church following a recent car accident that left him quadriplegic, meaning he doesn’t have the use of his arms or legs. What he isn’t doing, however, is allowing the accident to also rob him of his voice – or his message.

The 74-year-old pastor was traveling on Route 119 early one morning in December when frost and mist contributed to a crash in which a sport utility vehicle collided with him head-on. In an eerie similarity, his wife had an almost identical accident nearly 13 years to the day as his own. In that case too, slippery roads caused another driver to slam into her head-on. It took her months to recover, and she still to this day must use a crutch to walk.

The couple has been married more than 40 years.

The pastor has been left with a broken neck, broken ribs, a bruised spinal cord and a broken wrist. He had to have pins and rods placed in his neck, and has spent the last several months in a Portland rehabilitation center before being transferred to another center in Lewiston, some 100 miles southwest of Bangor.

Since the wreck, he has gained slight movement in his limbs, but he can’t bear weight or lift with either. His wife described the entire ordeal as “quite a siege.”

Indeed, as with any spinal cord injury, it is not only the individual who suffers. Relatives are often left to cope with mounting medical expenses and the exhaustion of working out a care plan. It is also extremely difficult to watch someone you love struggle through or be unable to complete even basic tasks such as dressing themselves or brushing their teeth.

When the root cause of this is the negligence or recklessness of someone else, you deserve at the minimum to have these basic and necessary expenses covered. Any additional award received is never going to return life to the way it was, but it can help to ease the struggle.

According to the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, the top causes of spinal cord injuries are:

Motor vehicle accidents (48 percent)
Falls (21 percent)
Sports Injuries (14 percent)
Violence (15 percent)
Other (2 percent)

Of these, about 45 percent result in loss of use of all four limbs.

The cost of such an injury is vast. You are looking at a minimum of 15 days in the hospital for acute or intensive care. Then you’re going to spend a minimum of 45 days in rehabilitation. Those two stays alone will run upward of $140,000. After that, the average first-year expense is $200,000. All of that is if you are lucky. People who are left with quadriplegia are going to rack up bills that total well over $400,000 annually.

February 23, 2012

Children in Maine Risk Injury in Bumbo Seats

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Many parents have embraced the Bumbo – a soft, foam seat that allows their infants to sit upright. However, consumer safety groups are now pleading with the U. . federal government for a recall, following a number of child injuries in Maine and throughout the country.

An article recently ran in the Bangor Daily News about this very issue.

Our Bangor child injury attorneys understand that there have been nearly 100 reports of infants being hurt while using this product. That is only in the last five years, following a voluntary recall in 2007, when the manufacturer pulled all the seats from the shelves because there weren’t adequate warning labels.

At that time, there were 46 injuries reported to the U. . Consumer Product Safety Commission. In 14 of those cases, babies suffered serious head injuries.

After the recall, the South African manufacturer of the Bumbo seat agreed to print warning labels on the side of the seats, saying parents shouldn’t put their children in the seats if they are on an elevated surface, like a desk or table.

But that apparently wasn’t enough because after the recall, there have been 45 more children who fell out of the seat when it had been placed on a tall surface. Of those, 17 infants had skull fractures. Another 50 babies were said to have fallen out of the seat when it had been on the floor. Of those, one had a concussion and two others suffered head injuries.

Still, the government has given no indication that it will issue a recall, though one official from the safety commission admitted it seemed as if there were a large number of injuries. What’s perhaps more confusing is that often times, recalls are issued when there haven’t been any reports of death or injury. So why would the government hesitate to recall a product that has been proven to cause injuries to babies?

Even if there isn’t a second recall, we believe this warrants parent attention – and perhaps avoiding use of this product, given its track record.

While some might argue the number of injuries is relatively small in comparison to the number of seats sold (about 4 million) you have to consider whether your child’s safety is worth the risk.

The Bumbo seat is designed in such a way that it does not have straps or buckles or restraints. There are tray tables that are also available for purchase with these seats, but they are not meant to act as a securing device.

Manufacturers of the seat say it’s safe when used as intended, and that parents should be nearby at all times. But there have been numerous reports of parents who HAVE been nearby, and their children were still seriously injured.

In one case, a father in Washington reported his son was seated in the Bumbo seat on the kitchen table. He was right next to him. The boy arched his back, and fell onto the kitchen floor, landing on his head. The baby boy had to be rushed to the hospital, and undergo emergency brain surgery for his injuries. While the child’s parents are hopeful he will make a full recovery, they are still watching him closely for signs that he may have suffered permanent injuries.