Our Blog

Fire Pot Gel Recalled Due to Explosions

July 6, 2011

The New York Times is reporting that the maker of a pourable fuel gel for decorative fire pots is recalling about a half million bottles after learning of dozens of accidents, including two near fatal accidents in New York State. This recall was announced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Reports of severe burn accidents connected to the use of gel fueled fire pots, a relatively new product, have surfaced in California, Florida, and Indiana, in addition to New York. A 14-year-old boy currently remains in a coma in a Long Island hospital after an explosion. The manufacturer of the product is Napa Home and Garden Inc. of Duluth Ga.

The Commission’s inquiry began after the New York Times reported on the fuel gel explosions that injured a 14-year-old boy and his friend. One of the injured parties has already had 14 surgeries. If you have purchased any of these products Napa Home is offering a full refund if they are returned to the original merchant. Products such as these that are improperly tested should never have made it to the marketplace.

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