The popularity of tasers has been constantly on the rise, as many officers prefer using the taser guns to their bullet guns. Tasers work by firing metal barbs into the skin, which then discharges an electrical charge, designed to disable someone, long enough to allow police to detain them safely. Out of a total of 18,000 US police departments, 7,000 currently use taser weapons. Tasers are currently issued to all patrol officers as a matter of policy in 1,700 departments.

Currently, in New York City, police officers are testing the use of tasers. Around 300 New York City Police Officers are carrying tasers to test the program before distributing them to 3,000 more officers. The reason for the preliminary test is because there have been numerous allegations that police are using the tasers too frequently and in unnecessary circumstances, which could in turn, cost cities and tax payers millions of dollars. Additionally, Amnesty International USA has counted 250 cases in the last six years in which people died after being stunned with a Taser, but it is uncertain if the shock directly caused the deaths. Many have been suspected to be the result of heavy drug or alcohol use.

Nevertheless, it is the right and duty of the officers to use the tasers on noncompliant, aggressive and combative persons. Those who oppose the use of tasers argue that the police are nonchalantly using them on pregnant women, young children and teens as well as the elderly. Should these categories of people be exempt from the law if they are posing a threat? Most would argue no and the inappropriate use of tasers such as those mentioned above generally reflects situations involving poor individual judgment. They do not characterize the vast majority of police officers carrying tasers.

http://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2008/08/02/police-tasers_20080802174.html

A jury trial was set yesterday for Jan. 5, 2010, to settle a lawsuit filed by the parents of a Louisville teen whose feet were severed by a Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom amusement ride last summer.

Kaitlyn Lasitter's parents, Randall and Monique Lasitter, are seeking an unspecified amount of punitive and compensatory damages.

The trial date was set so far in the future in part because lawyers for both sides still have much preparation left to do -- including taking 77 more depositions.

Also, Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Barry Willett has yet to decide whether the families of two friends who were sitting with Kaitlyn during the June 21, 2007, accident will be allowed to join the Lasitters' civil suit against Kentucky Kingdom.

Willett said that he will decide that issue this week.

Attorneys for Kentucky Kingdom pointed out that if the two other families -- who are seeking unspecified damages for medical expenses, emotional trauma, pain and lost wages -- are allowed to join the suit, it could mean further delays in preparing for trial.

But Jennifer Barbour, an attorney for the Lasitters, said much work already has been completed in the last year, including the filing of more than 15,000 pages of discovery and four on-site inspections of the Superman Tower of Power ride.

Also yesterday, Willett set a Nov. 23, 2009, deadline for both sides to mediate a settlement in the case.

State officials recently released a report blaming a faulty cable and slow response by a ride operator in the accident, but they said it was impossible to know exactly why the cable snapped.

A year after the accident, Kaitlyn, now 14, continues to recover after doctors re-attached her right foot. They could not save her left foot.

Her parents filed suit last year against the theme park, claiming it failed to maintain the equipment and ensure riders' safety.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080731/NEWS01/807310430

Lilly's research showed some patients on Zyprexa gained as much as 80 pounds and that the incidence of high blood sugar at diabetes levels was 3.5 times higher than for placebos, according to documents filed in a lawsuit brought by the state of Alaska. Before those findings, doctors already saw a ``logical link between weight gain and diabetes,'' an instruction sheet advised the sales force in 2002.

``We believe it is essential to weaken this link to neutralize the diabetes/hyperglycemia issue,'' the company said in the sales document, which was provided for the Alaska case. ``Neutralizing any concern from our customers will be essential to the future growth of Zyprexa in the marketplace.''

Zyprexa became the company's top-selling drug, with $4.76 billion in sales last year -- about a quarter of Lilly's revenue. Company sales representatives disputed or ignored the risks and pursued primary-care and nursing-home doctors as well as psychiatrists, according to documents in the Alaska case that were released July 29 after Bloomberg News filed a motion to unseal them.

Lilly agreed to pay $15 million to settle the Alaska suit in March. The company has paid about $1.2 billion to resolve claims brought by more than 31,000 patients who said they weren't adequately warned Zyprexa could cause weight gain, diabetes or inflammation of the pancreas, Lilly spokeswoman :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">Marni Lemons said July 8.

Failure to Warn

Lilly faces suits by nine other states alleging failure to warn and improper marketing, separate consumer-protection investigations in about 30 other states and an investigation of off-label marketing by the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia, the company said May 6 in a regulatory filing.

Lilly doesn't engage in improper marketing and hasn't downplayed the risks, spokeswoman Tarra Ryker said in an e-mailed statement. The lawsuit documents ``are a tiny fraction of the more than 20 million pages'' provided by Lilly, Ryker said. ``They do not accurately portray our company strategy or our overall conduct.''

Lilly closed down 30 cents at $47.11 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading after falling about 1 percent in the initial minutes after U.S. markets opened.

Pushed Sales

Lilly pushed Zyprexa sales to primary care physicians and doctors in nursing homes for patients who weren't diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, according to complaints filed by Montana and Mississippi.

Most documents and depositions were acquired by plaintiffs' lawyers in consolidated Zyprexa litigation before U.S. District Judge :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">Jack Weinstein in New York. Alaska's lawyers, who were provided the material, acquired additional evidence before trial.

The unsealed documents showed that about 550 sales representatives were greeted at an October 2000 meeting with a ``Viva Zyprexa'' version of the :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">Elvis Presley song, ``Viva Las Vegas,'' touting the ``many wonderful indications'' for the drug.

There were only two indications for the drug at the time, Mike Bandick, director of marketplace management for the Zyprexa product team, testified in a June 2006 deposition. This didn't mean the team was pushing sales beyond the approved uses, he said. ``I assume this had more to do with getting the right number of syllables into that line,'' referring to song's lyrics.

Zyprexa's ``attributes line up so beautifully in the elderly,'' :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">Alan Breier, then-team manager for the drug, told the group. ``The need for better treatment in Alzheimer's and other elderly conditions is so paramount and so key,'' Breier said, according to a recording provided for the Alaska lawsuit.

CEO Questioned

Zyprexa wasn't approved for use with Alzheimer's or for elderly conditions, :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">Sidney Taurel, the current chairman of Lilly's board and then-chief executive officer, said under questioning by Alaska's lawyers in September. Breier wasn't encouraging improper sales, Taurel said.

``He's talking about the characteristics of the molecule which might make it a good agent for Alzheimer's,'' Taurel testified. ``He was not giving them instructions as to what to do the next day in the field.''

Sales representatives were advised to focus on symptoms, not diagnoses, when dealing with primary care physicians or PCPs, according to the Alaska documents.

``The doctor's thinking that he does not see a schizophrenic or bipolar patient,'' Bandick said in a December 2000 internal e- mail to the marketing department. ``But he probably does see patients with symptoms of behavior, mood and thought disturbances,'' he wrote. ``Even if the doctor does not have diagnosis, he should treat anyway.''

Not Approved

Zyprexa wasn't approved for such indications at the time, Bandick said in his June 2006 deposition. ``I did not intend for the sales force to promote under mood, thought and behavioral disturbances,'' he testified.

Lilly's sales representatives encouraged doctors to prescribe for such uses, according to call notes produced in the Alaska suit. In a July 2002 note, sales representative Thea Jung described her meeting with a doctor in Anchorage this way: ``Dr. B said she misunderstood and thought Z was just for bipolar or schizophrenia and was really excited to hear that it was applicable to her practice for `complicated mood.'''

Talking to patients about symptoms ``is an important and necessary piece of the dialogue between physicians and sales representatives,'' Lilly's Ryker said.

Added Warning

Lilly added a warning to its packaging in October 2007 saying that more than half of patients in 13 studies gained an average of 12 pounds after taking the drug for less than a year. It said Zyprexa was more associated with higher blood sugar levels, a risk factor for diabetes, than similar medications.

Before the October 2007 label change, Lilly didn't instruct its sales force to say Zyprexa's diabetes rates were higher, former marketing director :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">David Noesges said in a January deposition.

``We will NOT proactively address the diabetes concern,'' the Zyprexa sales force was advised in 2002, the documents show. ``The competition wins if we are distracted into talking about diabetes.''

The case is Alaska v. Eli Lilly and Co., 3AN-06-05630 CI, Alaska Superior Court, Anchorage District.

To contact the reporters on this story: :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; :S:d1" T_DELAY="50" T_WIDTH="110" T_BGCOLOR="#ddedd9" T_FONTFACE="Verdana,sans-serif" T_FONTCOLOR="#000000" T_STATIC="true" T_ABOVE="true">Elizabeth Lopatto in New York at elopatto@bloomberg.net.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNURtByTt7Yk&refer=news

A federal judge in Atlanta has refused to allow multidistrict litigation arising from salmonella-tainted peanut butter to proceed as a class action.

Certifying hundreds of product liability cases as a class action against ConAgra -- the producer of Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter -- would make little sense because doing so in these cases would neither clear the courts of thousands of similar, individual suits nor effectively compensate plaintiffs with claims too small to litigate, said U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. in an order entered July 22.

In that order, Thrash rejected proposals by lawyers representing peanut butter consumers to create one class of people who bought jars of peanut butter tainted with the salmonella bacterium and a separate class who were sickened or died after eating it. Thrash stated in his order that ConAgra refunds of more than $33 million to Peter Pan retailers and consumers was likely far more effective than suing ConAgra in a class action on their behalf.

Moreover, he said, "Under the plaintiffs' trial plan, at least 6,000 individual trials on exposure, injury, causation, damages and other individual issues will have to be prosecuted whether or not a class is certified, presumably by the lawyers already retained by the personal injury claimants. This is not a case where class certification avoids clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly. ... If class certification is denied, these cases will go forward in essentially the same manner they would if a class were certified, only without an expensive, unnecessary, meaningless and largely uncontested 'common' issues trial."

On Wednesday, Robert H. Smalley III, the plaintiffs liaison counsel and a partner at McCamy, Phillips, Tuggle & Fordham in Dalton, Ga., said, "We are disappointed with the ruling."

But he added that the ruling was an aspect of the peanut butter litigation that needed to be addressed. "It was one of the ways we proposed to deal with the masses of cases," he said. "Now, we simply need to deal with all the cases that are here" in Georgia.

In addition to the product liability cases filed against ConAgra in federal court in Atlanta, Smalley said there are "a number of cases in state courts throughout the country" as well as "a great number of unfiled cases."

Smalley said that no decision has been made as to whether plaintiffs counsel will file an interlocutory appeal of Thrash's order.

James H. Walsh, ConAgra's lead counsel and a partner at McGuireWoods in Richmond, Va., could not be reached.

Stephanie Childs, a spokeswoman at ConAgra's corporate headquarters in Omaha, Neb., said, "We actually don't comment on litigation. ... I can tell you that we do remain committed to addressing any consumer concerns related to our peanut butter recall."

The 2007 recall and the civil suits that followed stem from the contamination of peanut butter at ConAgra's manufacturing plant in Sylvester, Ga., with salmonella, a potentially fatal bacterium that can cause acute nausea, diarrhea and abdominal pain when ingested. On Feb. 14, 2007, ConAgra temporarily closed the plant to identify and eliminate conditions that allowed the bacterium -- which is found on an estimated 20 percent of harvested peanuts -- to flourish. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta reported last year that by May 22, 2007, 628 people in 48 states had been infected with the salmonella bacteria after eating ConAgra peanut butter brands. Seventy-one were hospitalized with symptoms related to salmonella poisoning, Thrash noted in his order.

In denying class certification, Thrash rejected the proposal by plaintiffs counsel to create two classes -- a purchaser class of all people who on or after Oct. 1, 2004, purchased any Peter Pan or Great Value brand peanut butter with a product code beginning with 2111; and a personal injury class composed of anyone who on or after Oct. 1, 2004, consumed a ConAgra peanut butter brand with the 2111 product code and was subsequently sickened.

In a class action, a purchaser class would recover damages based on the theory that ConAgra had been unjustly enriched by purchases of the tainted peanut butter. But Thrash rejected this idea, writing, "It goes without saying that class certification is impossible where the fifty states truly establish a large number of different legal standards governing a particular claim."

The plaintiffs, he wrote, "have failed to carry their burden that there are no material variations in state law" regarding unjust enrichment. "The many differences among jurisdictions would prevent the Court from finding that common issues of law predominate on this claim."

Thrash also shot down arguments by plaintiffs lawyers that a class action would be a cost-effective adjudication of thousands of small claims.

"At oral argument, the plaintiffs' counsel suggested that the damages formula would be based upon the retail value of all the peanut butter sold during the class period or ConAgra's profits from peanut butter during the period," Thrash wrote. "Thus, the actual injury to the plaintiffs' purchasers class and the proposed remedy are completely disconnected."

Moreover, anyone who bought contaminated peanut butter can still obtain a full refund for their purchases from ConAgra, the judge noted. "The issue, then, is whether non-litigation alternatives may be considered when making a judgment on the superiority of class action litigation."

In the case of the contaminated peanut butter, Thrash determined, ConAgra's refund program is likely a better vehicle to reimburse purchasers of tainted peanut butter than a class action. "The defendant claims that it has paid nearly $3 million directly to consumers for claims relating to more than 941,000 jars of peanut butter," Thrash wrote. "In addition, ConAgra has paid more than $30,665,293 to retailers to compensate them for refunds they issued to consumers or for product they had in their possession at the time of the recall ... . According to the defendant, in the first week it announced its recall program, [ConAgra] received at least 1,365,352 calls regarding the program.

"For these reasons, the court does not share the plaintiffs' concern that the refund program is 'minimal or even illusory.'"

Concerning a personal injury class, which Thrash also rejected, the judge noted, "This is not a case where damages may be calculated using some formula, statistical analysis or other essentially mechanistic method."

The plaintiffs counsel have argued that class certification was appropriate to decide the issues "involving the defendant's 'knowledge, conduct and duty'" surrounding the contaminated peanut butter, Thrash continued.

However, the judge wrote, "Although [ConAgra] has not formally admitted liability, it is highly unlikely that it will deny that salmonella-contaminated peanut butter is a defective product and makes people sick who eat it. The court is not convinced that an issues class would promote judicial economy or materially advance the litigation."

Thrash acknowledged that it would be possible to have a class-action trial based on "for example, 'Can eating peanut butter that is contaminated with the bacteria listed above cause illness?' ... But why bother having a trial on issues of such abstract generality?" On the other hand, a class-action trial of issues "such as what the defendant knew or should have known and the adequacy of its general plant sanitation practices in relation to the onset of illness for thousands of people would require special interrogatories and a verdict form of unimaginable complexity," Thrash wrote. "I cannot imagine how to fashion a verdict form that would provide meaningful answers to overarching epidemiological questions in this case."

The case, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, is In re ConAgra Peanut Butter Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:07-MD-1845.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423438751

Petroleum Wholesale faces "a potential financial death penalty" for allegedly stiffing drivers at Sunmart gas pumps, Abbott said.

The lawsuit charges The Woodlands-based company with violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by deliberately calibrating gas pumps to benefit the company at the expense of consumers.

In a written statement, the gas company said Thursday it has done nothing wrong and anticipates "a satisfactory outcome to this matter."

But state officials say a recent investigation by the Texas Department of Agriculture found that 985 pumps of the roughly 1,700 tested at Sunmart gas stations, which are owned by the firm, dispensed less fuel than required. Many of the violations took place in the Houston area.

Each violation carries a civil penalty up to $20,000. If only one customer per day pumped gas from each of the 985 pumps, the company could face a daily fine of nearly $20 million.

The number of violations can't be determined until the legal action proceeds, the attorney general said, adding, "It could be a very stiff penalty."

And the damages could multiply, Abbott said, because state officials believe company owners knowingly and intentionally miscalibrated the pumps. The case could also result in criminal charges, Abbott said.

"They would be very smart to come forward very quickly and try to resolve it as quickly as possible," he said.

Company officials disagreed with the conclusions of the inspections.

"We adamantly deny that (Petroleum Wholesale) has intentionally cheated consumers. Nevertheless, because of the misinformation put out by the Agricultural Commission last week, we expected the filing of this lawsuit," company officials said in a prepared statement, which was not attributed to any individual at the firm.

"We are additionally concerned that some of the testing methods utilized by (state inspectors) do not comply with the testing protocol set forth by applicable statutes designed to ensure test result accuracy."

Higher gasoline prices have spurred numerous consumer complaints about cheating, said Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, whose department is responsible for inspecting fuel pumps across the state.

The agency received more than 570 complaints in July, compared with about 1,000 for an entire 12-month period two years ago, he said.

The state's crackdown on Petroleum Wholesale will send a strong message, Staples said.

Staples has 72 inspectors for all of Texas and will ask for more when the Legislature meets next year. But motorists also can check gas pumps to make sure they are getting proper fuel amounts, he said.

"The 16 million drivers are the best inspectors that we have," Staples said.

Fuel pumps are allowed to be off by as much as 6 cubic inches per 5 gallons, roughly six tablespoons, which could cost customers 2 cents a gallon, based on $4-a-gallon gasoline.

The worst pump in the Houston area fell short by about 22 cubic inches, or about one-tenth of a gallon, for every five gallons pumped, Staples said.

Many of the Sunmart calibrations were so far off, Abbott said, "that we believe that was knowingly and intentional deceptive, fraudulent practices by Sunmart."

Staples said his inspections found 62 of 64 pumps at one Sunmart station on Interstate 45 in Houston "set in favor" of the company. "These are outrageous results," he said.

Abbott and Staples also accused Sunmart company officials of intentionally obstructing the Agricultural Department's July investigation by "scrambling to recalibrate those pumps" once they learned inspectors were coming around.

The company declined to respond to specific allegations, saying in its statement: "We have provided documents to the Department of Agriculture, have responded to every request for information and will continue to offer our assistance in the process."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5918607.html

The letter, written by Eric Olsen, director of engineering for Crocs, said the Niwot-based shoemaker voluntarily would add "escalator safety language" to hang tags on its shoes.

Olsen's letter was in response to incident reports forwarded to Crocs by the commission "regarding escalator entrapment, tripping, slipping and other incidents involving customers who reportedly were wearing Crocs footwear."

According to the letter, there were 186 escalator incident reports from within the United States sent to Crocs. The commission received 73, Crocs received 12 via e-mail and seven via insurance claim or product-liability lawsuits, one of which was also sent to the commission, and 94 reports were received from miscellaneous sources such as consumer calls and media reports.

Crocs' foreign affiliates also reported an additional 50 reports, bringing the total to 236 worldwide.

A spike in the number of reports occurred during a two-week period in September 2007 that "coincides with the timing of widespread media coverage ... regarding escalator entrapments involving Crocs shoes ... ," according to Olsen's letter. "... the frequency of reports has been influenced by the media or other external sources."

Despite the recent drop in the company's stock, Tia Mattson, a company spokeswoman, said it has nothing to do with the safety campaign.

"I do not think that it's accurate to tie in stock prices with our safety messages," she said. "I think the stock has been volatile for a period of time, and I don't think it has to do with the safety message."

Crocs is in the midst of several personal-injury lawsuits, but it would not disclose the total number. Andrew Laskin, a personal-injury attorney with New York-based Robinson & Yablon PC, is representing three clients with federal lawsuits against the company _ two in New York and one in Kentucky. He soon will file another lawsuit in California.

Crocs issued a statement that said the new safety messages are not intended to protect the company in future lawsuits, and that the message is simply "a proactive measure that we took and a way to relay positive information."

Laskin said the new safety campaign is too little, too late.

"It doesn't help them for all the people that have shoes now," he said. "They should be making a public service announcement now, telling people what the problem is. Putting a label on it next year doesn't help anyone.

"It makes them look like a company that didn't do anything about safety until it was abundantly clear that they were going to get caught in lawsuits."

Crocs will not settle any of the lawsuits out of court because, "We believe the lawsuits are without merit, and Crocs will continue to defend itself against this type of baseless litigation," according to an e-mail from Mattson.

Multiple requests to speak with Crocs executives were not granted.

Crocs contends that the safety issue falls on "escalator designs and safety features, escalator maintenance, escalator warning signs and rider behavior," according to Olsen's letter.

Olsen also said the tags will not have an effect on future injuries. The onus lies on designing the dangers out of escalators.

"... although an appropriately designed tag could convey the proper message to consumers who take the time to read the tag, any tag is unlikely to be as effective at decreasing the frequency of escalator entrapment injuries as designing the hazard out of escalators and reducing consumers' access to the step to skirt gap," he wrote.

The step to skirt gap is the space on the side of the escalator, which is where Crocs reportedly have gotten stuck.

While the company has insisted that the safety tag is not a maneuver to protect itself in future legal proceedings, local attorney John Purvis, with Boulder-based Purvis & Gray LLP, said the company can defend itself with it.

"I would expect them to try to defend themselves when this public safety tag is launched. In any lawsuits in the future, this public safety announcement can be used as a post-sale warning. That's what I'm betting," Purvis said.

Purvis is affiliated neither with Crocs nor any of the personal-injury lawsuits.

"A post-sale warning is designed to let consumers know that there is this danger, and that they should be careful," Purvis said. "It's going to be a fact question as to whether what they've done is broad enough to reach the people they should be reaching, and there are going to be a lot of arguments that say they're not."

Laskin said he will continue to file suit against the company, even when the shoe carries the safety message.

"They could argue that people should have known that they could get sucked into escalators," he said. "I wouldn't hesitate to take them to court in the future. I would say that the warning was inadequate."

http://www.bcbr.com/article.asp?id=95226

The U.S. District Court in Manhattan chose Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as lead counsel in a suit against French bank Societe Generale on July 23.

One of the lead attorneys, Patrick Daniels, traveled to Paris to assemble a team of French lawyers and press the case for allowing French citizens join in the case, the International Herald Tribune reported.

"It is up to the court to decide whether French investors are allowed in, but there are precedents," Daniels said.

Plaintiffs are attempting to recover losses suffered after a trader at the bank, Jerome Kerviel, allegedly lost $7.2 billion with unauthorized trades.

Allowing non-U.S. citizens to join a U.S. class action suit is rare.

"It's something that the courts here wrestle with," Michael Young, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher told the Times.

"It has created an issue because sometimes you have a non-U.S. plaintiff investing in a non-U.S. company bringing a class action in New York," he said.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/07/31/US_lawyers_courting_French_plaintiffs/UPI-14481217515715/