Our Blog

String Lights recalled – Fire Hazard.

July 12, 2012

This year my neighbor has done an amazing job decorating her porch for the summer. Furniture, hanging plants, and as of last night, string lights. It looks beautiful, comfortable and festive. I just called her to alert her about this recall, thankfully she bought different lights but it goes to show that just because something is in a store, available for purchase does not mean it is a safe product. Imagine decorating your home only to have it burn down to no fault of your own but due to a defective and dangerous product. Sounds a bit paranoid, but sadly it can and does happen.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission just announced a recall of string lights. These multi colored lights were sold at Family Dollar stores from September 2011 – December 2011. The lights do not meet the UL standard and pose a risk of fire and shock. Please compare the string light you have at home to the ones depicted in the link above and if you own any of the recalled lights stop using them immediately and return them to Family Dollar for a refund.

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