Hi folks!
Just got back from Israel, wow, what a trip.
Found this in my email.Would love to get your comments.
$5 donation to the Cherenobyl fund, for each opinion.
thanks,
amy
Plaintiff: On or about January 4, 2003, the Plaintiff, Dan Hint began taking TrimSpa at the recommended dosage of one tablet, three times per day. Plaintiff's use of TrimSpa was at all times within the guidelines and recommendations distributed by the Defendant. On or about February 2, 2003, Dan Hint complained of a headache, weakness, numbness and difficulty moving his left upper and lower extremities and visited the ER at the St. Christopher Regional Medical Center . At the ER, it was determined that Dan had suffered a right parietal intracerebral hemorrhagic stroke. Dan remained hospitalized for several weeks. It is Plaintiffs' contention that the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in researching, designing, testing, developing, manufacturing, labeling, licensing, promoting, maketing, distributing, selling and/or otherwise introducing TrimSpa into commerce in that the defendants knew or should have known that TrimSpa created a high risk of unreasonably dangerous side effects, including but not limited to, an increased intra cerebral pressure, sometimes vasculitis, resulting in hemorrhagic strokes. Plaintiff is seeking damages, including punitive damages.
Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs' injuries were proximately caused in whole or in party by non-parties, ( not their fault) Plaintiffs' comparative fault diminishes proportionately any damages; Plaintiffs assumed and/or incurred the risk of injury and damage; Plaintifs' are not entitled to recover due to the non-forseeable misuse of the product by Plaintiff; Plaintiffs cannot recover from Defendants for the reason that the product was safe, that the product complied with applicable codes and standards adopted by the United States or by Indiana or an agency of the United States. Further, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs cannot recover for the reason that there was a modification or alteration of the allegedly defective product not reasonably expected by Defendants and made after the delivery to the initial user; and Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover for the reason that any defect in the product was open and obvious.
so what do you think about this and other cases like this?thanks,amy