Our Blog

Dangerous High Chairs

January 5, 2012

Parents do their best to protect their children and purchase products that will help keep their babies safe and comfortable. I am always concerned when products designed for small children become the subject of recalls. Recently IKEA recalled highchairs because the buckle that is attached to the seatbelt can open unexpectedly creating a fall hazard for a child. While this does not sound like such a big deal, the whole point of a seatbelt in a high chair is so your baby is not able to wriggle her way out of the chair, thus giving mom or dad a chance to perhaps grab juice from the fridge or stir a pot on the stove.

If you have one of these chairs contact IKEA for a free replacement seat restraint.

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