Human factors expert witness advises on infant’s brain injury from falling out of child seat

ByKristin Casler

|

Updated onJanuary 24, 2022

Human factors expert witness advises on infant’s brain injury from falling out of child seat

A human factors expert witness advises on a case involving an infant who fractured his skull and suffered a brain injury in a fall from a floor-level child seat. The plaintiff is a mother who received a baby seat as a gift for her infant son. The seat previously had been used by another family member. The baby was sitting in the seat on the floor when he flipped out and struck the hard floor. The child’s babysitter was standing nearby when he fell. The baby suffered a skull fracture that required hospitalization.

The mother filed a products liability and failure to warn action against the manufacturer and retailer of the baby seat.

Question(s) For Expert Witness

1. Were the warnings on the seat adequate?

2. In what ways could they have been improved?

Expert Witness Response

inline imageA prior version of this seat was recalled because of problems with the safety warnings. Because the plaintiff was not the original purchaser, she did not see the packaging or receive instruction sheets. Thus, the only warnings that the plaintiff had were on the seat itself.

inline imageMy bottom-line opinion is that the post-recall warnings for the subject seat were defective, making the product unreasonably dangerous as sold and also when acquired and used by the subsequent family. Further, the seat is defective because it allows a child to fall out.

inline imageMy warnings opinions are based on well-known, fundamental human factors/ergonomics principles that are largely based on empirical studies in peer-reviewed publications.

inline imageA warning must be noticed first and examined. It is my understanding that neither the givers of the seat, nor the plaintiff, remembers seeing the warnings on the seat. The seat did not contain a well-designed warning on the rear. The text size is very small. Its location is poor; it is on the lower back of the seat where caretakers would not be looking if facing the face of their baby. And the print is of poor quality—the lettering appears faded, smeared or ill-formed. Thus, it is my opinion that the safety information in the warning message is not adequately salient. Likewise, the additional post-recall warning on the front side of the seat is flawed in terms of message degradation/smearing and tiny lettering. The small, ill-formed print makes reading difficult even from relatively short distances away. Both the old and new warnings lack adequate color and brightness contrast. This inadequate contrast would reduce the print's legibility even if the lettering was fully formed.

inline imageSeveral other principles of effective warnings are violated with regard to salience. One is placement/location of the warnings. The optional tray can obscure the post 2007 recall warning during the time the caretaker is looking down to interact with a child.

inline imageThe multiple combination of failings with respect to known formatting aspects suggests that the defendant manufacturer did not do much, if any, investigation into determining proper warnings for its product before or after the 2007 recall, despite knowledge that people were not noticing the warning. The company should have come up with a better method of providing warnings that would last the life of the product. The verbiage in the rear on-product warning expresses content in odd ways. It has information related to the hazard but it seems to skip around a lot to avoid telling what the hazard is.

inline imageBecause this product is likely to be considered benign from its simple appearance, and thus it does not inculcate much consideration of safety, people will not be likely to look for or notice warnings associated with this product.

inline imageThe warnings (both pre- and post-recall) violated basic principles of effective warnings in the human factors literature available prior to the manufacture of this unit.

inline imageFrom my work in other cases involving the manufacturer and the retailer, it is clear that the retailer knew about the dangers prior to the purchase of the seat in this case. I have seen no evidence that the retailer made any suggestions to the manufacturer to improve its warnings or to put on seatbelts. I believe that the retailer, given its knowledge of young children getting out, falling and being injured, should have played a bigger role instead of doing nearly nothing.

inline imageThe above defects rendered the seat unreasonably dangerous such that the defendants in this case should not have made the seats available for sale in the condition in which they were sold. Furthermore, this case serves to solidify my opinion that the pre-2012 recall seat is not safe for use, even when placed on the floor.

About the author

Kristin Casler

Kristin Casler

Kristin Casler is a seasoned legal writer and journalist with an extensive background in litigation news coverage. For 17 years, she served as the editor for LexisNexis Mealey’s litigation news monitor, a role that positioned her at the forefront of reporting on pivotal legal developments. Her expertise includes covering cases related to the Supreme Court's expert admissibility ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a critical area in both civil and criminal litigation concerning the challenges of 'junk science' testimony.

Kristin's work primarily involves reporting on a diverse range of legal subjects, with particular emphasis on cases in asbestos litigation, insurance, personal injury, antitrust, mortgage lending, and testimony issues in conviction cases. Her contributions as a journalist have been instrumental in providing in-depth, informed analysis on the evolving landscape of these complex legal areas. Her ability to dissect and communicate intricate legal proceedings and rulings makes her a valuable resource in the legal journalism field.

Find an expert witness near you

What State is your case in?

What party are you representing?