Our Blog

Pourable Gel Fuel Recall Expands Yet Again

October 11, 2011

Bird Brain Recalls Pourable Gel Fuel Due to Burn and Flash Fire Hazards.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission this week announced that yet another company is recalling a gel fuel product due to burn and flash fire hazards. This time the brand is Bird Brain pourable gel fuel. As a Western New York and Buffalo product liability attorney who is currently representing those injured by these type of products, I am concerned that not all companies have issued a recall.

The CPSC reports that “The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is still burning. This hazard can occur if the consumer does not see the flame or is not aware that the firepot is still ignited. Gel fuel that splatters and ignites can pose fire and burn risks to consumers that can be fatal.”

In this case, 1.6 million bottles have been sold packaged in 16-ounce, 32-ounce, and 64-ounce plastic bottles and sold with or without citronella oil. The labels on the container say “Bird Brain Firepot Fuel Gel” or “BioFuel Fuel Gel.” The bottles were sold as single bottles and in multiple-bottle packages.

Please call our firm if you have been injured by this product. We have years of experience representing those injured by defective products. We can use our knowledge and experience to help you and your family.

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