Our Blog

Cabinet Locks Recalled Due to Lock Failure

April 23, 2012

The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently reported that 900,000 Push ‘N Snap Cabinet Locks are being recalled as children can open the locks. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Young children can disengage the cabinet locks, allowing access to cabinet contents and posing the risk of injury, due to dangerous or unsafe items. The report indicates that DJG has received 200 reports of locks that did not adequately secure the cabinet, including reports of damaged locks. Of the reported incidents, the firm is aware of 140 children between the ages of 9 months and 5 years who were able to disengage the locks and gain access to the cabinet’s contents. In three of the reported incidents, the children who gained access swallowed or handled dishwashing detergent, window cleaner or oven cleaner, and were treated, observed and released from emergency treatment centers.

This item was sold at Bed Bath & Beyond and other retail stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from January 2004 through February 2012 for between $2 and $4.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Amusement Park Must Keep Patrons Safe

As an attorney who has handled many amusement park injury cases against parks like Six Flags and others, I am concerned when employees continue to fail to keep their patrons safe. An employee of the park knows the ride better than the customers and it is that persons

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply

In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that “The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected

Read Blog