Man struck in eye by retractable dog leash suffered loss of vision – $1,300,000 Settlement

Plaintiff was given a retractable dog leash by his neighbor, who was a retiring sales representative in the process of moving out of state. The sales rep had been given this leash as a sales sample by an unknown distributor some years in the past. The leash had not been used and was in its original packaging. The leash was marketed as a leash that could be fitted to the user’s waist while jogging, and the leash had a short detachable leash at the end, connected by a side release buckle.

Plaintiff had used the leash approximately three times when the short leash detached at the point of the side release buckle and struck the plaintiff in the hand. Plaintiff assumed he did not have the side release buckle secured properly. Plaintiff continued to use the leash without incident for a few days until the leash failed again. This time, the end of the leash recoiled and struck his left eye, rupturing the globe. The plaintiff was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery, which saved the eye. However, he lost nearly all of his vision. Attempts were made with two additional surgeries at Johns Hopkins to salvage more vision in the eye, but these failed. Plaintiff’s vision was rated at “count fingers.”

Venue in Virginia was the U.S. District Court, Eastern District. Given the lack of a warranty claim and the potential contributory negligence/assumption of risk claim, as well as the issues of being in the “rocket docket,” plaintiff’s counsel chose to bring this case in Connecticut. Plaintiff’s counsel had some difficulty in finding a Connecticut attorney who would agree to act as local counsel and let him remain lead counsel. After several months, the Connecticut attorney initially hired as local counsel terminated his relationship with plaintiff’s counsel, as he concluded that the case did not have merit and plaintiff’s counsel was pushing too aggressively for a trial date, discovery and deposition. This attorney was a well-respected personal injury attorney and his withdrawal from the case caused some difficulty in obtaining new local counsel. Plaintiff’s attorney eventually obtained new local counsel and continued with the case.

Plaintiff’s counsel deposed the defendant corporate owner. The defendant testified that the leash was designed for him by a Chinese manufacturer, and while he owned the patent, he was not a design engineer and had no formal design training.

Defendant relied on testing and product inspection that was allegedly performed by a Chinese facility. Defendant’s business was closed by the time of depositions; however, he was able to produce some inspection documents. Defendant had included a warning booklet with the leash but he admitted he had copied those warnings from a FLEXI leash insert. Defendant admitted that he had changed the design of the leash to eliminate the short leash/side buckle, and that this could be done without negatively affecting the leash’s usefulness or functionality. He further admitted that the leash was dangerous and defective as originally designed. There had been two prior incidents of eye injuries with this leash, but they involved the side release buckle housing breaking, not the detachment failure that the plaintiff experienced. Defense counsel requested mediation at the conclusion of the defendant’s deposition. The case was mediated, but no settlement was reached, as the only offer was $100,000, with the “possibility” of obtaining $400,000 if that would close the case.

A trial date was set and expert depositions were taken. Plaintiff relied on a loss of earning capacity claim, as his skill set had diminished due to his loss of depth perception. This claim was hotly contested based upon plaintiff’s varied earnings history, the impact of the housing market and economy on his profession and the change in his business model which negatively impacted his income, pre-accident. The value of the case was the near complete loss of vision of the left eye.

The defendant alleged that due to the lack of an unrelated warning on the leash, this leash was not manufactured by his supplier or at his direction, and he offered evidence that the Chinese are/were known to counterfeit items, and/or to continue to produce them after their contract run was completed. Plaintiff’s counsel was prepared to rebut this claim with photographs of a similar leash that plaintiff’s counsel had obtained from the defendant’s website, shortly after the time of injury when he was initially retained. This page had been removed from the website at the time of the defendant’s deposition.

Weeks before trial, the case was mediated a second time and settled.

[14-T-083]

Type of action: Personal injury – products liability
Injuries alleged: Ruptured globe-loss of vision in left eye
Court: Superior Court Stamford/Norwalk (Connecticut)
Date resolved: April 30, 2014
Special damages: Past medical bills – $71,619.05; future medical bills – $56,000
Verdict or settlement: Settlement
Amount: $1,300,000
Attorneys for plaintiff: Paul R. Thomson III, Roanoke; Brenden P. Leydon, Stamford, Connecticut