var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

vivelafat: That's good Synchro!

August 29, 2008 4:35 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Is this legal? Don't they HAVE to recall it?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha is tired of the rain...I think I need a bigger boat!

August 31, 2008 2:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ Vivelafat: A company is not required to VOLUNTARIALLY recall a product. Most of the recalls that CPSC announces are those that are voluntarially initiated by the company in cooperation with CPSC. CPSC does have the power to FORCE a recall (and to assess fines), but it is a very lengthy process, so this consumer alert is simply to get the word out that the product is dangerous. The \"recall\" will seek to pbtain restitution for those that have purchased the product and want to have it repaired, or have their money refunded.

@2719 By voluntarially cooperating with CPSC, you as the manufacturer can help to wordsmith the press release/recall announcement to place as positive a spin on it as possible. read any of the recent press releases, and there is never any blame placed, and there is rarely a statement that says that the product is unsafe. By NOT cooperating, CPSC has total control over the press release, and they must prepare a report that identifies the specific hazards that the product poses and there is a certain threshold that the product must meet before CPSC can conduct a recall. If the product meets this threshold (I would suspect that this one does), then the US Government says in the report that the product is unsafe whic would pretty much be a slam dunk for any liability lawsuit, so while issuing a press release stating that your product MAY present a risk might be bad, having the government produce a report that says your product is unsafe is 1000 times worse.

$\"user-pic\"$

yasth

August 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Compelling a recall is a rather long process (and one that is almost never done). Given the confusion about who actually is responsible it would almost certainly end up in court.

The CPSC is just doing the proper thing, and asking that people not use the products, rather than waiting however many years the court battle might take.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

RonDiaz

August 29, 2008 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I thought the CSPC just got new powers to protect us? And they are FAIL already? Congress FAIL FTW.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

blackmage439

August 29, 2008 4:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RonDiaz: I agree completely. And I also agree with vivelafat. It is disgusting on the part of SFCA, Inc. to not take responsibility for the products they purchased the rights to. An upstanding company would say, \"Yes, we realize these cribs are a death trap, and were manufactured incorrectly and illegally. We're issuing a recall.\" Instead, they're plugging their ears and shouting, \"Sorry about your baby. It's not my baby who died, so I don't give a fuck. LA LA LA LA LA!!! I can't hear your babies' muffled choking sounds! LA LA LA!\"

Sadly, it seems when companies manufacture their products in China, they pick up more than savings; they pick up some of the less stellar nuances of a Communist regime...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

timmus

August 29, 2008 4:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Mr. Mainway, I'm afraid this is, by no means, a very safe accessory. And I have concerns about this Bag O' Glass, Bag O' Nails, Bag O' Bugs, Bag O' Vipers, Bag O' Sulfuric Acid...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

no.no.notorious

August 29, 2008 4:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

the way a company thinks is that is costs less money to deal with the lawsuits form infant deaths than it costs to recall a product. unfortunate, but true

check out the world famous case of the ford-pinto issue:
[books.google.com]

skip down to pg. 28 where they put a value on \"pain and suffering\" and come up with a \"total cost per fatality\" figure. it's pathetic, but that's how they work. Hopefully, business leaders in the future will change things.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ceriphim

August 29, 2008 5:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@no.no.notorious: Well, it's called doing business. Not to defend Corporate America or anything, but they've gotta put a price on this stuff somehow.

This may come as a total shock, but corporations don't typically do \"what's right\" out of the kindness of their hearts. That's where the Gov'mint steps in with laws or regulations that (hopefully) have our best interest at heart. Or that's the idea anyway.

$\"user-pic\"$

noi56u

August 29, 2008 5:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@no.no.notorious: this was the crux of Ed Norton's job in Fight Club, no?

$\"user-pic\"$

67alecto

August 29, 2008 5:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dinger_82: I was about to say that

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 4:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I hear the sound of the wild lawsuit fairy in the air, especially if people don't head CPSC and buy it anyway, and their kid dies.

Cheers!

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 6:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"head\" should be \"heed.\" Oops!

$\"user-pic\"$

SadSam

August 29, 2008 5:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't really think that's what happens. Instead people go out to buy a product and have no idea that its been recalled. The product at issue continues to be bought and/or it continues to be used because the recall is not well known or advertisied.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's an election year, so sit back and watch 200+ congresscritters get behind the CPSC and it's ruling on this, declaring fiscal and financial war on the corporation. Then watch as the company's stock plummets because they didn't cooperate with the CPSC in the first place.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Entrapped? What about just plain old trapped?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yikes, that looks like a pretty bad design flaw.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

zentex

August 29, 2008 5:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

SFCA maintains that it is not responsible for products previously manufactured by Simplicity Inc.

Orly?

[www.reuters.com]

SFCA, Inc. purchased the debt of Simplicity,
Inc. and then purchased the assets through a Foreclosure sale.
...
\"We are thrilled to complete the purchase of the assets of
Simplicity, Inc. We believe that SFCA, Inc. can use these assets to
build a new company that will be a leader in the baby furniture
industry,\"

Seems to me that they WOULD be responsible after purchasing both debt and assets. But something is telling me they purchased how they did so they would minimize their liability after Simplicity was folded.

given the fact they SFCA is gonna use Simplicity's assets to make more baby items...this is disgusting.

I hope lawyers sue them out of existence! (one of the few times i'll advocate lawyers winning)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Does that kid have a baseball for a head?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I hope everyone emails the CEOs at SFCA and informs them that their products will not be purchased.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 1, 2008 10:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@howie_in_az: Yes definately, I have already printed out my letter and put a stamp on it, but does anyone know what else they sell, I would hate to send even one single penny their or their partners way, ya know?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

wgrune

August 29, 2008 5:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I am confused as to how a child would get into the situation shown in the picture...

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune:
@Spaceman Bill Leah has the Crazy Eyes:

Exactly. How many of these were made and are in the public? How many children died in them? How many children died from them? What percent have resulted in death? The percent is very low I am assuming.

Not to blame the victim in these cases but to just throw up a question: How do we know that perhaps its not a case of a mother or father killing the child and trying to get money for it. Just saying some people are crazy and or would do anything for an addiction.

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 6:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@LiquidGravity: Infanticide certainly happens. On the other hand, this is a well-known kind of accidental infant death, and it's why the federal safety standard requires gaps in any baby-adjacent material to be so narrow that the baby couldn't get his/her body through. The company manufactured a design that defied standard safe practice, and I don't see any reason to doubt that something that tends to be dangerous proved here to be dangerous.

$\"user-pic\"$

Spaceman Bill Leah has the Crazy Eyes

August 29, 2008 5:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: babies wiggle a lot. all they would need to do is get one leg out and gravity would just slide them right under the bar. once a baby starts falling out they have no ability to pull back into the bassinet.

$\"user-pic\"$

RamV10: The Axeman Returneth

August 29, 2008 5:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: He would likely have his head poking OUT rather than IN. Works both ways, I think it's just easier to illustrate in the way it is in the pic.

$\"user-pic\"$

Spaceman Bill Leah has the Crazy Eyes

August 29, 2008 5:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RamV10: [www.chicagotribune.com] THis article makes it clear that is exactly how they dies, head in, legs and torso out.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

A responsible parent would measure the item and ensure its safe. If you buy something and just assume its ok then I worry about you. Never assume that what you purchase is perfect.

Maybe I am cynical, I have a friend that's an attorney that works with these types of cases and he has two warehouses full of faulty crap. A lot of cheap propane barbecues and plastic surge suppressors.

Ignorance does not mean you are not culpable for your actions.

But I do think the least the company should do is build a guard that closes that gap and make that available for free. What could manufacture costs of that be in China?

And shouldn't we look at the government and the regulators for not catching this a long time ago? We fail more than twitter.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ugly

August 31, 2008 1:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: Go ask your parents how much of your crap they measured when you were a baby.

I have an ongoing argument with some co-workers about this kind of thing (no, I'm not alone) and basically I think everyone agrees that while companies can't always foresee out of use kind of dangers, those that result from regular use (like a baby slipping out under a bar) should absolutely be foreseen. Barring predicting and fixing the issue, a recall seems like the bare minimum they should be responsible for.

I wonder if in their (cost of recall) <= (cost per death) * (number of deaths) calculation there's any thought as to the cost per death escalating after they're aware of the issue. I can imagine that if they ARE found liable here that a jury discussing damages would not look too well on a company that simply ignored a recall direction.

$\"user-pic\"$

petitcerise

August 30, 2008 2:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: Are you a parent? It doesn't sound like you are. You really don't have time to sit and measure things that you buy when you are dealing with a newborn and little sleep. You really assume that these companies that manufacture things specifically for babies have done their homework. I think that the two parents that lost their babies never imagined that a co-sleeper bassinet would be responsible for their baby. I can imagine how horrible it must feel to walk away from your baby for a few minutes or to fall asleep and wake up to find your baby strangled.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 5:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What happened here was SFCA only bought the assets and debts of Simplicity, leaving the liability with Simplicity, which still exists.

This is a common practice and otherwise just another form of a non-statutory merger. It will probably be rather difficult pinning SFCA for liability.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

jscott73

August 29, 2008 6:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Looks like Simplicity takes safety \"very seriously\". On their website, simplicityforchildren.com, under \"safety info\" we get:

\"Safety is critical. At Simplicity for Children we take it very seriously\"

The press release and their website sure use the word safety a lot. Too bad their actions don't back up their words.

I have two children and will be sure to avoid their products and inform other parents to do the same.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

megsuma

August 29, 2008 7:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

And neat, my Kotaku login works here too :]

I heard about this on NPR, and, as stated, the company claims no responsibility for bassinets manufactured before they bought Simplicity. While they should be able to be held accountable, probably via legal action, they are in no way obligated to make a recall - but they should. They should also consider what could happen if they don't at least compensate people who bought these older models. NPR noted as well yesterday that the more recent models negate this issue because of permanently attached fabric on the sides or something.

Still, by not really doing anything, they definitely showcase the blindness of Verizon and the ineptness present in many a BofA rep.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

wgrune

August 29, 2008 7:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, I understand how that could happen now. Thanks folks.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

2719

August 29, 2008 7:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If they do a recall isn't that in a way accepting responsibility for those deaths? If they clearly state they are not responsible for products manufactured prior to purchase I don't think they should be held responsible.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 30, 2008 4:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: They were happy to make money selling the product. You think it's OK for them to get the benefit but not have to accept any problems from the product?

Whether or not an asset purchase results in liability is not a simple legal question. However, I'd love to be the attorney who gets to ask the CEO \"So you were aware that at least two children had strangled to death from these bassinets, but you still refused to recall them?\"

A recall doesn't automagically create liability. \"No, we don't think it's our fault, but we recalled them anyway because we didn't want any children to die\"--well, as an attorney on the other side, that's NOT an answer that helps my case.

$\"user-pic\"$

megsuma

August 29, 2008 7:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@2719: IANAL, but I think you take on certain responsibilities when you take over another company. They should have a PR department capable of stating that \"While we are not responsible for the deaths caused by products manufactured by Simplicity, we will gladly refund or recall defective bassinets in hope of avoiding further fatalities.\" They can't necessarily ignore it, but they can't necessarily claim responsibility either without taking the proper steps to be understood in this situation instead of being demonized.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

mzhartz

August 29, 2008 7:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone here own one of those? That looks like something I probably wouldn't buy in the first place. Taking down a velcro flap is supposed to do what?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 10:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

the private equity firm which bought Simplicity structured the deal with the company's lenders, National City, so that they first bought the senior debt [probably the line of credit used to operate the business], THEN Simplicity technically declared bankruptcy, held an auction, and sold off just the assets--to the same firm. The management who made and sold these pieces of shit stayed in place. It's like they just rebooted the company to wipe out any technical liability for their millions of previously sold dangerous products [this is their fourth crib recall since 2005.]

AND they get James Baker and a bunch of Republican lobbyists and cronies on their board now, so it's win win.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 29, 2008 10:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Looks like we have a front runner for Worst Company 2009. If they're making money from this bassinet, they should take responsibility as well.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

UniComp

August 29, 2008 10:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They should at least put a warning sticker on the box, \"May Kill/Snuggle your baby.\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

mtalman

August 30, 2008 1:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

There's something wrong here. Here are the Google Ads that are delivered with this article:

Baby Bedside Crib
Find Baby Bedside Crib at Target.
Shop and Save at Target.com.
www.Target.com

Recall
Infant & Child Product Recalls -
Learn Which Products Made The List
www.Parents.com

Recalls
Find Out The Brands Being Recalled
With The Free News Toolbar
News.alottoolbars.com

Simplicity Baby Furniture
Shop The Simplicity Baby Store Now
At Walmart.com. Always Low Prices!
WalMart.com

Recall
Huge selection of
Recall items.
Yahoo.com

Does it bother anyone that 3 out of 5 items are for recall items for sale?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

PinkBox

September 2, 2008 1:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mtalman: It is picking up on keywords, and the word recall is used in the article itself.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 30, 2008 5:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Reminds me of a bathroom at a McDonalds' on I-57. Someone had scratched off the \"C\" on a Baby Changing Station sign.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Pro-Pain

August 30, 2008 2:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I wouldn't recall my product just because a couple of dumb babies, or dumb baby parents let them choke. It's always somebody else's fault. Enough is enough. Lazy and litigeous people for the loss.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

August 31, 2008 5:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@alphafemale: Sorry, what? Consumers can make an informed decision as to whether or not the product is deadly when used as intended? How about some personal responsibility for the companies that make the product and make money from it?

$\"user-pic\"$

Consumerist-Moderator-Roz

August 31, 2008 2:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Pro-Pain: For those upset by this comment, I think this is a pretty clear case of sarcasm. Move along, gents and ladies.

$\"user-pic\"$

dvdchris

August 30, 2008 10:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Pro-Pain: I sense a devoweling coming on...

$\"user-pic\"$

badhatharry

August 31, 2008 3:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dvdchris: Not for you, for the jackass who thinks that infants should be responsible for their own well-being. Just wanted to make that clear.

$\"user-pic\"$

badhatharry

August 31, 2008 3:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dvdchris: I sense a special place in Hell.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 31, 2008 8:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

They should at least use that pic up there for the picture on the box that it comes in, that way consumers can make an informed decision.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 31, 2008 5:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

A few issues come to my mind. It's great that the CPSC caught this and brought so much attention to bear; it seems they've learned from the Chicago Tribune stories. It's sad it took two deaths to do this. It makes me question whether the CPSC should have had enough staff to measure widely sold baby products even before a single child was injured. Would it really take so much employee time to send a guy to Wal-mart and Babies R Us once a month with a measuring tape?

Second, that crib bar width standard has been around for years, and the (old) Simplicity must have known about it. That's pure incompetence, and will surely add to the inevitable lawsuits.

Third, for the (new) Simplicity: I'm sure consumers will take into account their refusal to recall a defective product created by a community from which they'd bought both assets and liabilities. I wonder if the accountants took into account the presumed destruction of the company's reputation.

Fourth, while our Simplicity high chair has never tried to kill my little girl, it's proven to be badly designed, impossible to clean and highly impractical. I hate that the death of two children happened, but it gives me another reason to steer prospective parents away from the company's products.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha is tired of the rain...I think I need a bigger boat!

August 31, 2008 8:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Boogerhead: Should the CPSC have enough staff to periodically inspect products at the retail stores...ideally, but the sad fact is that they did not have the funding to maintain such a staff. Hopefully the new legislation [www.cpsc.gov] that mandates 3rd party certification of certain toys and cribs will significantly reduce injuries and deaths.

Fortunately several retailers have agreed to recall (and refund the money) for those who have purchased the product. Hopefully they will pressure Simplicity to recall the product as well.

Looks like CPSC found the first company that wants to test out its new powers!

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

SharkD

August 31, 2008 11:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well, the easy answer is that my wife and I will remove any Simplicity and/or SFCA-related products from our baby's registry (if there are any on it) and we'll be sure to counsel our friends (who are all right around the age to have a child, if they don't alread) to avoid any and all products from Simplicity and SFCA (and whoever buys them when they go under).

If everyone tells 3-4 expectant parents to avoid Simplicity and SFCA (and whoever buys them out), they'll quickly face the corporate equivalent of leprosy.

","","");