On July 16, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a warning to consumers to immediately stop using Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits, manufactured by Furmia, LLC. The products in question can cause uncontrolled fires and a dangerous phenomenon known as flame jetting. These hazards can result in serious burn injuries or death.
Why Are Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits Dangerous?
Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits use liquid fuels such as isopropyl alcohol, ethanol, or bioethanol. According to CPSC, these fuels can burn at temperatures exceeding 1,600°F and can cause third-degree burns in less than one second. 
One of the primary concerns is flame jetting. This can happen when someone attempts to refill a fire pit while a flame is still present. Alcohol flames can be difficult to see, which may cause a person to mistakenly believe the fire is out. Adding more fuel can ignite vapors inside the fuel container and cause flames or burning liquid to shoot toward the person pouring the fuel or nearby bystanders.
Injuries Have Been Reported
CPSC reports more than two dozen incidents involving Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits, including flame jetting, leaking fuel, and unexpectedly high flames. Seven injuries have been reported, including third-degree burns.
Which Houswise Fire Pits Are Affected?
The warning applies to Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits with rectangular, round, or square bases. The affected model names include Vesper, Altair, Quad, and Astra. The products were sold in colors including marble, black, light gray, and dark gray. At least 53,500 units are affected. The fire pits have been sold online since March 2023 through Houswise.com, Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and other websites.
What Should Consumers Do?
CPSC urges consumers to stop using the affected Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits immediately and dispose of them. Consumers should not sell or give the products to someone else. Furmia, LLC, has not agreed to recall the products or provide a remedy to consumers. Because of this, this matter is currently a CPSC safety warning rather than a voluntary recall.
The Serious Consequences of Dangerous or Defective Products
Burn injuries can be devastating and may require hospitalization, surgery, skin grafts, rehabilitation, and long-term medical care. Severe burns may also result in permanent scarring, disfigurement, nerve damage, loss of mobility, or death.
When a dangerous or defective product causes catastrophic injury or death, injured consumers and their families may have legal rights. Product liability cases may involve examining the product’s design, manufacturing process, warnings, instructions, safety standards, and what the manufacturer or seller knew about the potential danger.
Contact Cash Krugler Fredericks, LLC
CKF focuses on cases involving defective products. Having handled cases involving dangerous consumer products that result in fires, catastrophic burn injuries, and loss of life, CKF understands the complex issues that can arise in these cases.
The Houswise Tabletop Fire Pit warning highlights the serious dangers associated with products that use highly flammable liquid fuels. Flame jetting, fuel leaks, and uncontrolled fires can cause devastating injuries in a matter of seconds. When a dangerous or defective product causes serious injury or loss of life, families deserve answers and accountability. Manufacturers have a legal responsibility to ensure that the products they place into the marketplace are safe for consumers and include adequate warnings about potential hazards.
If you or a loved one has suffered a permanent catastrophic injury or wrongful death from a dangerous consumer product, our attorneys can evaluate your case and help you understand your legal options. Contact Cash Krugler Fredericks, LLC here or at info@ckf.law for a free confidential case evaluation.
]]>
In a significant development for Californians injured in rideshare crashes, Uber has withdrawn its controversial ballot initiative after reaching a legislative compromise with the Consumer Attorneys of California. That agreement resulted in Senate Bill 623 (SB 623), which has now been signed into law.
Uber’s original proposal would have dramatically changed personal injury litigation by limiting attorney contingency fees and restricting how accident victims could recover certain medical expenses—not just in Uber crashes, but in many motor vehicle injury cases across California. Those proposals drew substantial opposition from consumer advocates and trial lawyers, who argued they would make it harder for seriously injured people to obtain legal representation.
Instead, SB 623 reflects a negotiated compromise. The new law includes reforms affecting medical liens in rideshare accident cases while also requiring stronger safety measures for transportation network companies, including enhanced driver background checks and annual re-screening requirements. The legislation also prohibits certain financial relationships between attorneys and medical providers, increasing transparency in lien-based treatment.
While opinions differ on whether every aspect of SB 623 strikes the right balance, one thing is clear: California avoided what could have been an expensive statewide ballot fight with consequences extending far beyond rideshare litigation. This is a huge win for the people of California and will likely serve as a model of legislative resistance across the country as the rideshare industry continues to try and limit its responsibility for injuries to its passengers.
For individuals injured in an Uber or Lyft collision, these legal changes underscore the importance of obtaining knowledgeable legal advice early. The rules governing medical expenses, liens, and insurance claims continue to evolve, and understanding your rights can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case. Having successfully handled rideshare cases since the outset of the service, Cash Krugler Fredericks is all too familiar with the industry and successfully navigating these claims for the absolute best result for our clients.
If you or someone you love has been injured in a rideshare crash, contact Cash Krugler Fredericks for a free case evaluation. Fighting to Make it Right!
]]>
A New Proposal Could Make It Much Harder for Crash Victims to Hold Rideshare Companies Accountable
Imagine you are seriously injured in an Uber or Lyft crash.
You suffer a traumatic brain injury. Your spouse can no longer work because they must care for you. Medical bills pile up. Your life changes forever.
Now imagine Congress passes a law that makes it dramatically harder to hold the rideshare company responsible—even if the driver was working through the company’s app when the crash occurred.
That is exactly what a newly proposed federal amendment offered last week by Representative Vince Fong of California seeks to do.
What Would the Proposed Law Do?
Introduced on May 20, 2026 as an amendment to a 1000+ page proposed bill (H.R. 8870), the amendment would largely shield “network companies”—including rideshare platforms like Uber and Lyft—from legal responsibility for crashes caused by drivers using their apps.
In simple terms, the proposal says that Uber, Lyft, and similar companies generally cannot be held liable merely because they operate the platform connecting passengers with drivers.
Instead, injured victims would have to prove something much more difficult: that the company itself was grossly negligent or engaged in criminal wrongdoing.
For many victims, that could be a nearly impossible burden.
The proposal would also override state laws that provide broader protections for injured people and would apply regardless of whether the driver is classified as an independent contractor or employee.
Even more concerning, the amendment appears to apply retroactively, potentially affecting cases involving crashes that occurred before the law was enacted if not already filed.
Why Should the Public Care?
Rideshare companies are no longer small technology startups. Uber and Lyft collectively facilitate billions of trips and generate billions of dollars in annual revenue. Yet for years they have aggressively fought legal efforts that could expand their responsibility to drivers, passengers, and members of the public injured in crashes.
This proposal is the latest example.
A Long History of Spending Millions to Limit Liability
The rideshare industry has spent enormous sums of money lobbying lawmakers and funding political campaigns designed to shape the laws governing their business.
One of the clearest examples occurred in California.
When lawmakers sought to impose greater responsibilities on gig-economy companies, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other app-based companies funded Proposition 22—a ballot initiative that allowed them to continue classifying drivers as independent contractors. The companies spent more than $200 million supporting the measure, making it one of the most expensive political campaigns in California history.
That campaign was not simply about worker classification.
The broader objective was reducing the legal and financial exposure that comes with treating drivers as traditional employees and limiting the circumstances under which the companies themselves could be held responsible.
This proposed federal amendment represents another step in the same direction.
Why This Matters for Crash Victims
Many serious rideshare crashes involve life-altering injuries:
- Traumatic brain injuries
- Spinal cord injuries
- Multiple fractures
- Wrongful death
- Permanent disability
Historically, plaintiffs have often pursued claims not only against the individual driver but also against the rideshare company itself when evidence suggested failures in hiring, screening, supervision, safety policies, or operational practices.
Rideshare companies frequently argue that drivers are independent contractors rather than employees. This distinction can become a major issue in litigation because companies have long used it to distance themselves from responsibility for crashes caused by drivers using their platforms.
If this federal amendment becomes law, those arguments could become even stronger.
The result may be that many victims are left pursuing claims only against:
- The individual driver;
- Available insurance policies; or
- Other involved motorists.
Meanwhile, the company operating the platform that arranged the trip may be largely insulated from responsibility.
Accountability Drives Safety
There is a larger question at stake than who pays a judgment.
Accountability often drives safety improvements.
Throughout American history, civil lawsuits have exposed dangerous products, unsafe business practices, inadequate screening procedures, and corporate decisions that placed profits ahead of people.
When companies face meaningful legal consequences, they have strong incentives to improve safety. When those consequences disappear, so do some of those incentives.
Supporters of this amendment argue that rideshare companies should not be held responsible for the independent actions of drivers. However, shouldn’t the companies that profit from every ride also share in that responsibility when the system they created contributes to serious injuries or deaths?
The Bottom Line
This debate is about more than legal technicalities.
It is about whether billion-dollar corporations should be allowed to profit from transportation services while limiting their exposure when those services result in tragedy.
For years, rideshare companies have invested heavily in lobbying and political campaigns to shape the laws that govern their businesses. The proposed amendment continues that trend by attempting to narrow the circumstances under which these companies can be held responsible for injuries caused through their platforms.
Whether you are a rideshare passenger, driver, cyclist, pedestrian, or another motorist sharing the road, the outcome of this debate could affect your rights after a serious crash.
The question Congress must answer is simple – When a company profits from millions of rides every day, should it also share responsibility when those rides end in disaster? This amendment puts profits over safety and will only benefit the billion-dollar rideshare business with us, the public, paying the price.
CONTACT Your Representatives And Senators HERE And Tell Them To Vote “NO” to the Fong Amendment to H.R. 8870!
CKF – Rideshare Attorneys
While proudly serving clients in Atlanta and throughout Georgia, our firm handles rideshare cases nationwide. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a rideshare crash, contact our firm for a free case review. For over 20 years, the attorneys at Cash Krugler Fredericks have fought for victims of negligence and against corporations who put profits over safety. Contact us today for a free consultation.
]]>Parents rely on baby monitors to keep a close eye on their children, especially during sleep. Unfortunately, a recently announced product recall highlights how even common household devices designed to protect children can pose serious safety risks.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has announced a recall of Babysense Max View Baby Monitors due to a potential fire hazard associated with the device.
Why the Baby Monitors Were Recalled
According to the CPSC, the recall involves the Babysense Max View Baby Monitor, model number VBM55. The problem is linked to the device’s display or “parent” unit, which can overheat or spark while charging, creating a potential fire hazard in the home.
The display unit is the handheld device parents use to monitor video and audio from the camera placed in a child’s room.
Key details of the recall include:
- Recall date: February 26, 2026
- Units affected: Approximately 81,800 baby monitors
- Manufacturer: Hisense Ltd.
- Model involved: Babysense Max View Baby Monitor (VBM55 / VBM55RX)
The monitors were sold online through major retailers including, Amazon, Walmart, and Babylist between January 2023 and December 2025, typically priced between $90 and $180.
Reports of Overheating Incidents
The manufacturer has received 11 reports of incidents involving overheating display units, which prompted the recall. Fortunately, no injuries have been reported so far, but the potential risk of fire—especially in homes with infants—makes the issue particularly concerning.
Lithium-ion batteries inside the monitor may contribute to the risk if the unit overheats during charging.
What Consumers Should Do
Parents who own the recalled monitor should take immediate action. The CPSC recommends that consumers:
- Stop using the display unit immediately
- Contact Hisense to obtain a free replacement display unit
- Dispose of the device properly through a household hazardous waste program
Because the product contains a lithium-ion battery, it should not be thrown in regular trash or recycling, as improper disposal can also create a fire hazard.
The Importance of Product Safety
Product recalls like this highlight the importance of strong safety standards for consumer products. Manufacturers have a responsibility to ensure their products are safe for everyday use and free from dangerous defects. When companies fail to identify or correct safety issues before products reach the market, families may be placed at unnecessary risk.
When a Dangerous Product Causes Injury
While no injuries have been reported in this recall, defective consumer products can sometimes cause serious harm. Overheating electronics and lithium-ion battery failures have been linked to:
- Residential fires
- Burn injuries
- Smoke inhalation injuries
- Property damage
- Death
In situations where a dangerous or defective product causes injury or death, victims and their families may have legal rights under product liability law.
Contact Cash Krugler Fredericks, LLC
CKF focuses on cases involving defective products. Having handled cases specifically involving lithium-ion batteries that result in fires and the loss of life, CKF is acutely aware and experienced with what is involved in these extremely complex cases.
When defective consumer products cause serious injury or loss of life, families deserve answers and accountability. Manufacturers have a legal responsibility to ensure that the products they place into the marketplace are safe for consumers.
If you or a loved one has suffered a permanent catastrophic injury or wrongful death due to a dangerous product, our attorneys can evaluate your case and help you understand your legal options.
Contact Cash Krugler Fredericks, LLC here or at info@ckf.law for a free confidential case evaluation.
]]>
But when a hydraulic system fails, the consequences can be catastrophic. Sudden boom collapse, unexpected descent, violent jerking movement, or tip-over incidents frequently result in death and catastrophic injuries, including, but not limited to, brain injuries, spinal cord damage, and crushed limbs, among many others.
If you or a loved one was injured in a bucket truck or aerial lift accident, the cause may not be operator error. It may be a product defect.
How Hydraulic Systems Power Aerial Lifts
Most bucket trucks and aerial platforms depend on high-pressure hydraulic systems that include:
- Hydraulic cylinders
- High-pressure hoses and fittings
- Counterbalance or load-holding valves
- Pumps and control valves
- Seals and O-rings
When properly designed and maintained, these systems provide controlled, stable lifting. However, when even one component fails, gravity takes over.
Common Hydraulic Failure Modes in Bucket Trucks
- Sudden Loss of Pressure – A ruptured hose or failed fitting can cause rapid descent.
- Cylinder Seal or Rod Failure – Internal bypass can lead to uncontrolled lowering.
- Defective Load-Holding Valves – Without proper redundancy, a hose failure can result in free-fall.
- Hose Abrasion and Improper Routing – Predictable wear points can weaken hoses over time.
These failures are often foreseeable and preventable with safer alternative designs.
Georgia Product Liability Claims for Aerial Lift Accidents
Under Georgia product liability law, manufacturers can be held responsible when equipment is:
- Defectively designed
- Improperly manufactured
- Sold without adequate warnings
- Kept on the market despite known safety risks
Hydraulic system failures frequently involve internal corporate knowledge, prior field reports, warranty data, and engineering analyses. If safer alternatives were feasible but ignored, a design defect claim may exist.
Additionally, many of those tasked with maintaining and/or repairing the hydraulic systems may do so negligently, ignoring routine maintenance, cutting corners and ignoring vital specifications to make sure the system does not fail.
Workers’ Compensation Is Not the Only Remedy
While injured workers in Atlanta and across Georgia may receive workers’ compensation benefits, they may also have a third-party product liability claim against:
- The aerial lift manufacturer
- The hydraulic component manufacturer
- A distributor or upfitter
- A negligent maintenance provider
While workers compensation benefits may be available and can be helpful, those benefits are not full compensation for someone’s injuries. A successful product liability lawsuit may allow recovery for wrongful death, lost wages, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and in appropriate cases, punitive damages.
Cash Krugler Fredericks – Your Products Liability Attorneys
While proudly serving clients in Atlanta and throughout Georgia, our firm handles serious aerial lift and heavy equipment defect cases nationwide. We work with engineers and hydraulic system experts to uncover the true cause of equipment failure and hold those responsible accountable.
When companies cut corners or ignore known risks, we are Fighting to Make It Right.
If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a hydraulic cylinder failure, contact our firm for a free case review. If your family has been affected, you deserve answers — and accountability. For over 20 years, the attorneys at Cash Krugler Fredericks have fought for victims of defective and dangerous products across the country. These injuries are preventable, and those responsible must be held accountable. Contact us today for a free consultation.
]]>
Congratulations to the attorneys at CKF who were recognized yet again by Georgia Super Lawyers Magazine, a Thomson Reuters publication.
Andy Cash, David Krugler, Alwyn Fredericks, Lee Gutschenritter, Shane Bartlett, Lisa McNary, Wendy Huray and Philip Henry were named Super Lawyers, an honor reserved for only 5% of the practicing Bar. In addition, Andy, David and Alwyn were named to the Top 100 List.
To learn more about the honor and criteria, please click here.
]]>
As to the claims, while effective at absorbing moisture (hence its use in cosmetics and hygiene products), talc is often contaminated with asbestos because the minerals in talc naturally form in close proximity to asbestos. Even with safe mining of the minerals, whether the talc has been contaminated may go undiscovered for some time. Despite decades of reassurance by Johnson & Johnson, among others, that talc was safe for use, as claimed, the company has long known of the potential for contamination.
Bankruptcy Settlement Rejected
Presently, Johnson & Johnson is facing lawsuits from a staggering 67,000 (or more) plaintiffs, all who claim to have developed cancer after using the company’s baby powder and other talc-based products. While the mesothelioma claims are small percentage of those surrounding Johnson & Johnson’s talc products, a majority of the lawsuits involve claims of resulting ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson contends its products are safe but have continued efforts to settle the entirety of the litigation it faces through a bankruptcy settlement. The most recent attempt at such resolution, Johnson & Johnson’s third such attempt, was an offer of $8.9 billion, payable over 25 years, to resolve all claims against Johnson & Johnson. However, all three attempts at a global resolution have been rejected by the federal bankruptcy court. Should Johnson & Johnson ultimately succeed in getting approval for a nationwide settlement of all claims, such a settlement would prevent individual cases from being decided by a jury and end the multi-district litigation (MDL) in place. Additionally, such an approval would also shield Johnson & Johnson from any future lawsuits. It is estimated that there may be another 100,000 or more viable talc claims that have yet to be filed.
How Things Stand
With the most recent rejection of the proposed settlement, the individual cases and MDL will now proceed, although it is anticipated that Johnson & Johnson will likely continue its efforts at getting a settlement approved. Until such a settlement is approved, these cases will continue to proceed in courts across the country, with many resulting in more substantial verdicts against Johnson & Johnson.
Do You Have A Claim?
If you or a loved one has regularly used talc-based baby powder or similar products and have been diagnosed with cancer, typically mesothelioma or ovarian, you may have a claim. If so, you should contact the products-liability attorneys at Cash Krugler Fredericks for a free case review.
For over 20 years, the attorneys at Cash Krugler Fredericks have fought for victims of defective and dangerous products across the country. These injuries are preventable, and those responsible must be held accountable. Contact us today for a free consultation.
]]>
On August 28, 2025 and in conjunction with the CPSC, TTI Outdoor Power Equipment issued a massive recall of approximately 780,000 Ryobi electric power washers sold in the U.S. and Canada. The issue stems from a faulty capacitor that can overheat and explode, sending parts flying outward. According to reports, this defect has already led to 135 reports of overheating, including 41 incidents of the capacitor exploding. At least 32 people have been injured,with documented cases of cuts, fractures, and injuries to the hands, face, and eyes.
Models Affected
The recall involves the following Ryobi models:
RY142300 (2300 PSI)
RY142711VNM (2700 PSI)
These units were sold between July 2017 and June 2024 at major retailers, including Home Depot and Direct Tools Factory Outlet, both in-store and online.
If you own one of these pressure washers:
- Stop using it immediately.
- Check your unit by visiting the Consumer Product Safety Commission recall site or Ryobi’s recall page to confirm if your pressure washer is affected.
- Request a free repair kit. Ryobi is offering a replacement capacitor, along with shipping and installation instructions. Proof of purchase is not required.
Consumers may also contact TTI Outdoor Power Equipment directly at 1-800-597-9624 (Monday–Friday, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. ET).
Why This Matters
This recall underscores the dangers that defective products can pose to consumers. Despite testing and known risks, many manufacturers delay recalls or release products without adequate warnings—placing profit over safety. At CKF, we have represented countless families and individuals harmed by defective products. These injuries are preventable, and those responsible must be held accountable.
CKF’s Nationwide Defective Product Lawyers
For nearly 20 years, the attorneys at Cash Krugler & Fredericks have fought for victims of defective and dangerous products across the country. If you or a loved one has been injured by a Ryobi pressure washer or another defective product, our experienced attorneys can help you seek justice and compensation. Contact us today for a free consultation.
]]>
Presently, there is a big push by certain politicians here in Georgia, including the Governor, for “tort reform,” arguing that “frivolous lawsuits” are driving up auto insurance premiums. Lawsuits are not what is impacting auto insurance premiums in Georgia and is nothing more than misinformation from lobbyists who are pushing the agendas of large corporations and insurance companies. Don’t be fooled. The reality is, annual auto insurance premiums in Georgia are about $200 higher than the national average but the data shows that Georgia drivers are nearly twice as likely to be in an automobile collision compared to the national average. Many of us in Georgia are all-to-familiar with the traffic congestion, speeding, and distracted driving all of which contribute to making our roads riskier than in neighboring states. This is the reason why premiums are higher in Georgia.
As part of their campaign, the politicians and insurance companies pushing “tort reform” will not tell you that large personal injury verdicts are not to blame and that in most every personal injury case the insurance company is given the opportunity to resolve the case for much less and within the insurance limits they provide. However, instead of fairly compensating the victims, they roll the dice, often with frivolous defenses, in hopes of paying less to those injured. The insurance companies and their repeated failure to properly evaluate and compensate injured Georgians – out of greed – is what leads to large jury verdicts.
As the Georgia General Assembly tackles legislative issues this session, including possible “tort reform,” keeping up with these developments can shed light on how they might affect your rights and your wallet.
#CKandF #FightingToMakeItRight #TortReform #GeorgiaLegislation
]]>
CKF has represented families and individuals around the country who have lost loved ones or suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of defective products. These tragedies are almost always preventable and are regularly the result of the manufacturer’s negligence, whether in the design, manufacturing, or the marketing and insufficient warnings issued with these products. Through product testing, manufacturers often know of the very real dangers posed by their products, but in the interests of profit, refuse to fix them and sell these products anyway. Those injured by defective products are entitled to compensation and justice.
CKF’s Nationwide Defective Products Lawyers
For over 20 years, the attorneys at Cash Krugler Fredericks have specialized in handling cases across the country involving defective products. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a defective product, the experienced attorneys at Cash Krugler Fredericks can help. Contact us today for a free consultation to get your case started.
]]>