ILNews

Lawyer triumphs over Mattel: Indianapolis lawsuit plays part in worldwide recall of 4.4 million of Polly Pocket toys.

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indianapolis partner Gordon Tabor with the Tabor Low Group (right) describes the now-recalled Mattel toys that resulted in injury because of the one-eighth-inch diameter magnets in parts of the products (left).The toy giant recalled the product worldwide.







   When attorney Gordon Tabor first took on a product liability case arising in Indianapolis, he instantly knew that it was larger than one little girl.

   He consulted with his two younger brothers, Roy and Jeff – also attorneys at the Tabor Law Firm – and decided to press the case that turned out leading to a multimillion-dollar settlement against toy-making giant Mattel and a worldwide recall of 4.4 million toys.

   "This was a product that needed to be off the market, and we needed to take on Mattel to make that happen," said Tabor, 62, whose been practicing since 1970. "Not only for this little girl but all the other kids with these products."

   His client – Paige Kostrzewski, 7 at the time in July 2005 – had swallowed two tiny magnets from Polly Pocket dolls she ;d gotten days earlier. The 3-inch-tall plastic dolls have magnets inside designed to attach to separate plastic pieces of clothing, such as dresses or pants. Children can attach them by hand or put the pieces into a dollhouse-type part to put on the clothing. Each piece clicks into place, as is referenced in the product name Polly Pocket Quik-Clik Boutique.

   The doll-set products sold between May 2003 and September 2006 and were originally marketed toward children ages 3 to 6, Tabor said.

   In 7-year-old Kostrzewski ;s case, her injuries happened as she put pieces into her mouth to carry them from place to place and inadvertently ingested the 1/8-inch diameter magnets. Within days, she started displaying flu-like symptoms and complaining of abdominal pain, Tabor said. A CAT scan later revealed two items – the magnets – lodged in her small bowel, breaking down tissue and causing peritonitis.

   The toys were bought on a Monday, Tabor said, and a surgery at Riley Hospital for Children happened that following Sunday. Her mother contacted Tabor within the next week.

   Later, Tabor learned that the adhesive used to secure the magnets easily dissolved when children put the pieces in their mouths, he said. In Kostrzewski ;s case, that led to four months of treatment and at least $31,787 in medical expenses.

   The case was filed in California near Mattel ;s headquarters in El Segundo – in part because of Indiana ;s complex product liability statute, Tabor said. A lawsuit here would have been required to target everyone in the "chain of commerce," he said. That includes the product manufacturer in China, the distributor in London, Mattel itself, and the location that sold the product involved in the dispute.

   Instead, Tabor contacted the Consumer Product Safety Commission and in November 2005 filed the paperwork in California because it ;s a more "direct and favorable venue." Mattel counsel came to Indianapolis for depositions in February, and since then they ;ve been negotiating a settle- ment, Tabor said.

   Details have not been finalized by press time for Indiana Lawyer and Tabor declined to discuss a specific settlement amount.

   However, he said part of the settlement included Mattel ;s Nov. 21 worldwide voluntary recall of 4.4 million Polly Pocket products, which entailed eight different types of play sets. About 2.4 million are located in the U.S. that the CPSC has jurisdiction over, he said.

   The CPSC is also investigating other products with magnets that could cause similar injuries, Tabor said. A Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, has also warned consumers about magnets as part of its annual "Trouble in Toyland" report.

   "Each case certainly plays a large role and got our attention," said Patty Davis, a spokeswoman for the CPSC. "We ;re glad there are legal remedies out there to bring some of this forward."

   Since Tabor ;s action began on behalf of Kostrzewski, three other children ages 2 to 8 have also reported to have been injured in similar situations, Davis said, and media reports say that a Wyoming family has filed a suit against Mattel for similar injuries to a 6-year-old boy who was playing with his sister ;s play set. The CPSC has 170 reports of magnets coming out of the toys made by Mattel – also the maker of Barbie, Fisher Price, and Tyco-brand toys.

   "We think Mattel recognized early on they couldn ;t defend what happened," Tabor said of Kostrzewski ;s case. "I can ;t speak much what ;s happening with others, but this Indianapolis case started the ball rolling."

   Indiana Lawyer could not reach Mattel attorneys or media representatives for comment.

   Tabor said the recall couldn ;t have happened at a better time: pre-Christmas and during the busiest shopping season of the year. He thinks about his own granddaughter, whom he learned had two Polly Pocket products herself when this case first started.

   "Lawsuits can have a very therapeutic impact in society, and the law serves as a very important role in promoting consumer safety. This case shows that," Tabor said. "Through this, hopefully we can assist in preventing tragedies to children." •
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT