Port Charlotte / Naples / Bonita Springs / Ft. Myers Defective Crib Lawyers
Rock-a-Bye, Baby: Litigating the Defective Crib Design Case
Attorney Marcus Viles
TRIAL Magazine, August 1996,
After being rocked to sleep in her mother's arms, 22-month-old Laura Ann Quinn was placed in her Childcraft crib for an afternoon nap.1 While her parents talked quietly in the next room, she awoke and pulled herself up to the crib's side rail. At that point, a decorative knob caught and entangled her T-shirt, hanging and asphyxiating her. Ten minutes later, her mother discovered the baby's lifeless body suspended just inches from the floor.
Laura Ann was within a month of the age at which the crib manufacturer knew she was likely to climb over the rail, as most infants her age are expected to do.
Each year, about 50 babies suffocate or strangle due to defectively designed cribs.2 Unfortunately, most parents are unaware of the risks posed by cribs because warnings are almost nonexistent.
Infants are among the most helpless of consumer product users. They often lack the physical strength or dexterity necessary to free themselves from entanglement. Injuries and deaths from defectively designed cribs are both foreseeable and preventable.
This article discusses common crib design defects and provides the safety litigator3 with techniques for handling these cases.
Design Defects
It is well documented that crib manufacturers have known for decades of the hazards caused by defectively designed cribs. Today, an estimated 15 million cribs, many of which contain one or more defects, are in use. The following is a discussion of common defects.
Cornerpost extensions and finials. Fancy cornerpost extensions and decorative finials sell cribs and command high prices. They serve no structural benefit to the crib but are placed there only for aesthetic value. Unfortunately, they can catch infant clothing or neck cords, causing hangings and asphyxiations. In 1988, leading child safety researcher Marcella Ridenour wrote:
The most common pattern involves younger children, closer to 12 months of age, who are caught on a cornerpost extension or similar "catch point" by either a neck cord or clothing while they are inside the crib. Strangulation occurs after they fall or turn their bodies while they are entangled on the cornerpost extension. These younger children remain within the crib with part of the weight supported by the cornerpost extension. The other pattern involves older children, closer to 22 months of age, who are caught on the cornerpost extension while they are climbing over the side of the crib. Strangulation occurs after the children fall or attempt to lower their bodies to the floor of the room, and the clothing entanglement on the cornerpost prevents contact between the child's feet and the room floor. Both of these accident patterns are killing and injuring children who are within the height limitations for crib use described in the instructions. The most frequent consequence of both accident patterns is death.4
Since the 1970s, manufacturers have known about this hazard, called the asphyxiation death sequence hazard.5 Yet, the response of the industry and government to this hazard was extremely slow. For example, in 1980 an estimated 10 million cribs with dangerous extensions or finials were in use in the United States.6
This large number may explain the industry's reluctance to implement more stringent safety standards. New standards would directly implicate old cribs. Minutes of a committee meeting of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)--which is responsible for formulating industry standards on crib safety--confirm that U.S. manufacturers were resisting new standards as late as 1984 because they "would be used against products already on the market."7
In 1986, the ASTM published a standard for cornerpost extensions. It limited the height of the cornerpost to .39 inches above the upper edge of a crib end or side panel. A cornerpost may extend to .59 inches if the extension is chamfered or beveled according to the safety specification requirements.8 The standard came after more than two decades of reports of crippling injuries and deaths from cornerpost strangulations.
The standard, however, still failed to completely eliminate cornerpost extensions, even though the industry knew that short cornerpost extensions--now less than an inch--could make it even easier than tall ones for infants' clothing to become caught.
Moreover, the ASTM standard exempted cornerposts or finials that extend 16 inches or more above the uppermost edge of a side rail. In 1984, CPSC Commissioner Stuart Statler wrote to ASTM: "Simply put, this exemption will not adequately protect children against the threat of entanglement or strangulation in what is touted as safe baby furniture--cribs. . . ."9
After implementation of the standard, epidemiological data confirmed that babies continued to hang, strangle, and asphyxiate on cornerpost extensions.
Due to continued injuries and deaths, in 1991 the ASTM promulgated a new standard barring all extensions over .06 inches. The standard required that a warning against tying pacifiers, necklaces, or other items around a child's neck be printed in the product literature. The word "warning" was to be 3/16 of an inch high, and the remaining text was to be 3/32 of an inch high. There was no conspicuity or color requirement. Moreover, the warning did not advise of the danger of infants' clothing becoming entangled on the extensions.
Slat width and mattress position. Infants usually have thin arms and legs, soft abdomens, narrow hips, and ribs that can be easily compressed, allowing their bodies to easily pass through openings between crib rail slats or gaps between the mattress and side of the crib. Once their bodies pass through, however, the infants are suspended by their heads, which are relatively large and noncompressible and, thus, will not pass through the openings or gaps.
Since 1973, the manufacture of cribs with spacing of more than 2 3/8 inches between components has been prohibited.10 It is unlikely that cribs made in the United States since that date have violated this regulation. Certain imported cribs and millions of older used cribs, however, have slat widths and mattress gaps that do. Cribs are one of the few items of furniture that are handed down from family to family or bought at yard sales or flea markets. Consequently, there are millions of cribs currently in use that have dangerous slat widths and mattress gaps.
Headboard cutouts and scrollwork. Decorative cutouts (for example, animal figures, hearts, balloons) in headboards and scrollwork on top of headboards often attract infants to stand and put their heads on or in the spaces. The infant's head may become caught in the openings, which are often narrower toward the bottom, resulting in hanging or asphyxiation.
After 1973, manufacture and sale of cribs with cutouts and contoured headboards likely to entrap infants' heads were prohibited.11 Although cribs manufactured after the standard's enactment are unlikely to contain these defects, millions of cribs manufactured before and still in use do.
Catch points. These are any horizontal or vertical protrusions that can catch clothing or objects that are around a child's neck. Catch points include decorative knobs, latches, protruding screws or bolts, and pieces of attached hardware. Currently, there is no standard barring catch points.
Handling Design Defect Cases
The safety litigator should immediately secure all relevant physical evidence, including the crib and the infant's clothing or objects worn around his or her neck. The attorney should document loose or broken crib components and examine the crib for defects. This evidence will help reconstruct how the injury or death occurred.
The attorney should also identify the manufacturers and distributors of the crib and its component parts--knobs, hardware, or finials. This information often appears on the crib itself and the parts. The attorney should be aware that manufacturers often purchase component parts from different entities.
The attorney should also ascertain the precise cause of death or injury through the medical examiner's report. Findings in the report may include suffocation or strangulation.
To successfully litigate these cases, evidence of the manufacturer's knowledge of the defect is critical. Accident statistics are the most important data to acquire for proving knowledge of defects. The defendant will attempt to limit the plaintiff's discovery to accidents involving the same model and year of the crib or component part involved in the case. The plaintiff's attorney should argue that any crib or component part that resulted in asphyxiation or strangulation is relevant to prove knowledge of the hazard.
Other evidence of knowledge includes minutes of meetings of various associations like the ASTM. Defects, along with recommendations to correct them, are thoroughly discussed at these meetings. Generally, representatives of every major manufacturer are present. The attorney should try to secure copies of ballots reflecting which manufacturers voted against particular safety proposals. Further, records of the Consumer Product Safety Commission are available through the Freedom of Information Act.
Finally, evidence of knowledge must be explored in the manufacturer's deposition. The manufacturer will likely contend the crib complied with all regulations in effect at the time the product was made, and, thus, the crib was not defective. The attorney should argue that compliance with standards is no defense when the crib manufacturer knew or should have known of the defects.
Litigating cases involving defective cribs can be rewarding. Of course, no damages award can heal the pain caused by the loss of an innocent life. But helping clients seek recovery may ultimately prevent others from suffering the same loss. Only by diligently prosecuting these cases will cribs be made safer in the future.
Notes
1. The name of the child has been changed to protect the family's anonymity.
2. U.S. CONSUMER PROD. SAFETY COMM'N, NO. 5020, YOUR USED CRIB COULD BE DEADLY: SAFETY ALERT (Aug. 1995).
3. The safety litigator should consider changing the litigation semantics from defendant's language, "this is a products liability lawsuit," to "this is a product safety case." See Hy Mayerson, Industrial and Agricultural Vehicles and Products: How to Be a Better Safety Litigator by Being an Excellent Detective: Changing the Language of the Case from Defendant's Language to Plaintiff's Language, II ATLA 1992 ANNUAL CONVENTION REFERENCE MATERIALS 1513.
4. MARCELLA V. RIDENOUR, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, FINAL REPORT: PREVENTION OF CRIB CORNERPOST STRANGULATION 14 (Sept. 1988).
5. The industry has known of the asphyxiation death sequence hazard since the 1970s. DeSanto v. Smith Cabinet Mfg. Co., No. 92-2363-CA-WCM (Fla., Lee County Cir. Ct. Aug. 19, 1992).
6. Memorandum from George Rutherford, CPSC Statistician to Elaine Besson, CPSC Office of Program Management (June 12, 1980).
7. AMERICAN SOC'Y OF TESTING AND MATERIALS, MINUTES OF MEETING OF TASK GROUP F15.24 ON CRIB CORNERPOSTS (Jan. 19, 1984).
8. AMERICAN SOC'Y OF TESTING AND MATERIALS, TASK GROUP F 966-90, CONSUMER SAFETY SPECIFICATION FOR FULL-SIZE AND NON-FULL-SIZE BABY CRIB CORNERPOST EXTENSIONS (1987).
9. Letter from Stuart Statler, CPSC Commissioner, to ASTM (July 31, 1984).
10. 16 C.F.R. §1508.4 (1973).
11. 16 C.F.R. §1508.11 (1982).