When a professional speaks from real experience, you tend to listen, especially when the topic involves danger, risk, and real-world consequences. Sure, it’s always smart to double-check information, but sometimes experts are giving you the hard truth people don’t want to hear.
That’s exactly what one medical malpractice and catastrophic injury lawyer did when he took to TikTok to share the most shockingly dangerous things he’s seen in his career. From everyday products to hidden hazards most of us never think twice about, his insights opened a lot of eyes.
#21
A lawsuit that I'm litigating right now on behalf of a family of a horribly brain damaged little kid who choked on a Candyland gummy dot which was lodged in her throat for a prolonged amount of time and she suffered what we call an anoxic brain injury meaning a brain injury due to a prolonged lack of oxygen and I wanted to share with you just a little bit about the case and get your thoughts on it genuinely but I also wanted to then tell you about other similar cases that have come down the pike with these types of cases that may surprise you so long story short this Candy Land like the board game gummy dots were bought by um the stepfather of this child who then gave them to three of the kids one of whom was the youngest who was about 2 years old and the stepdad then dropped the kids off with the mother who's my client and there was no warning label on these candies that there was any sort of age range whatsoever making it seem as if this was something safe for any kid of any age to eat so the youngest takes a bite out of one is chewing and then all of a sudden they realize that she's not breathing so they rush over to her and they try to you know do chest patting and do the Heimlich and it won't come out so they rush her to the hospital where it had to be vacuumed out essentially by the doctors but not before it caused irreversible permanent brain damage and she's now basically unable to move unable to speak unable to walk unable to eat orally has a tube feed she will be permanently disabled for the rest of her life so the question is why not include a warning label for an age range? why not say this this product is not safe to eat for any child under three or under two? why not do that if you're the company? and also do you think that a company should have to do that because at what point do you draw the line between what's common sense and what the company has a duty to warn about in terms of what kind of food a parent should be given to their child? I will tell you that there were a couple verdicts in California involving a similar situation where there was a gel like candy that was excessively sticky and a child choked to death there was a 50 million dollar judgement entered in one case where a child choked to death and I think it was a 16 million dollar verdict in another case where a child choked to death so I wanted to share that cause I feel like a lot of people are quick to blame the parents and think there's no real claim here but it makes you wonder how 12 jurors or how however many jurors were there in California came to those conclusions in two separate cases where the family won
8points