Glass Industry Rep Sues Glove Company for Fraudulent MarketingMarch 12th, 2013 by DWM Magazine
A Houston-based glass industry representative has filed suit against Union City, Mich.-based Glove Coaters Inc., claiming the company “fraudulently marketed” its gloves as “a cut-resistant glove for safe glass handling.” Anthony Lopez claims he was cut by a piece of glass while wearing the company’s gloves last July while working at Craftsman Fabricated Glass in Houston.
Lopez alleges that he was assisting coworkers with a glass-cutting project at the company and was on the receiving end of the glass-cutting machine when, “as the glass was ejected from the cutting mechanism, it collided with [his] cut-resistant glass-handling glove.”
“The ejected glass cut through the glove and into Anthony Lopez’s hand, resulting in severe personal injuries and serious bodily impairment,” writes counsel for Lopez.
Lopez argues that Glove Coaters advertised the glove he was wearing as “a cut-resistant glove safe for glass handling” and that the glove was “defectively designed and fraudulently marketed [as a] safety glove.”
He further claims that Glove Coaters had a duty to use care in the design, manufacturing and marketing of the gloves; to use due care to test and inspect the gloves; to use proper material to permit safe use of the gloves; to warn of dangers connected with the gloves’ use; to avoid misrepresentations concerning the product; to inspect the product for defects; and to eliminate the alleged unsafe character of the product.
“Pleading further, without waiver of the foregoing, [Lopez] contends that the product at issue was defective and such defect existed at the time [Glove Coaters] relinquished possession or control of the product,” writes counsel for Lopez in the complaint. “Plaintiff contends that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous for its intended and reasonably foreseeable uses. Further, the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product was a proximate cause of the incident at issue. Defendant Glove Coaters could have provided a safer alternative design but failed to do so.”
Lopez further alleges that the company “had reason to know the particular purpose for which the product was required and … had reason to know [he] was relying on the skill and judgment of [the company] to select, furnish and maintain a suitable product.”
The suit seeks damages for reasonable and necessary medical and other healthcare-related expenses in the past and future; physical pain and suffering in the past and future; physical disfigurement in the past and future; mental anguish in the past and future; physical impairment in the past and future; and pre- and post-judgment interest provided by law.
Lopez is represented by Andrew Dunlap of Fibich, Hampton, Leebron, Briggs and Josephson in Houston.
At press time, Glove Coaters Inc. had not responded to the suit or to requests for comment.