Infant Button Battery Injury and Death (IBBID) Legal Remedies and Options for Redress
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Infant button battery injury and death (IBBID) is a known worldwide risk for pre-school age children. An ingested button battery that lodges in a child’s oesophagus will be fatal for the child if the button battery is not promptly removed. Button batteries of 20 mm diameter (e.g. CR2032) present a serious risk of such lodgement if ingested, they are in common usage (for example in many car key-fobs), and are readily available in supermarkets. Where such a button battery is removed (say by medical intervention) the child may be permanently disabled. It is the diameter of such button batteries (≥20 mm) that leads to lodgement and the electrical charge of such batteries that will cause tissue chemical burn, which, will likely be fatal if the burn creates a fistula (tunnel) through to an organ adjacent to the oesophagus (e.g., a tracheoesophageal fistula joins the windpipe and the gullet). Seven legal options for action are considered in the present paper, with ratings of cost, duration, and potential sources of funding (for the UK): Class action; Representative action; Individual action; Prevention of Future Death Report; Household insurance; Judicial review; and medical negligence. At present injured children ‘suffer in silence’ and some die, but if the harms of IBBID are sufficiently monetised, then it can be anticipated that the dangerous button batteries will price themselves out of the market and manufacturers and suppliers will seek alternatives (e.g. different size, different chemistry, different design).
References
-
Abdulkareem, I., Sabir, O. M., & Elamin, A. (2011). Button battery induced traumatic tracheoesophageal fistula: Case report and review of literature. Sudanese Journal of Paediatrics, 11(2), 43-49.
Google Scholar
1
-
ACCC. (2022). Button and coin batteries. Canberra: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) (productsafety.gov.au).
Google Scholar
2
-
Ashurst. (2019). Quickguide: Class Actions in Australia. Sydney: Ashurst Lawyers (ashurst.com).
Google Scholar
3
-
Ashurst. (2021). Collective Actions: UK Guide. London: Ashurst Lawyers (ashurst.com). 20 October.
Google Scholar
4
-
Beaulne, G., & Sharfuddin, R. (2022). An Update on Covid-19 Class Actions in Canada. Toronto: Bennett Jones Lawyers.
Google Scholar
5
-
BMA. (2021). NHS medical indemnity. London: British Medical Association (BMA) (bma.org.uk).
Google Scholar
6
-
CBC News. (2023). Manitoba family suing AstraZeneca after son's stroke following COVID-19 vaccination. Ottowa: CBC/ Radio-Canada (cbc.ca). 22 March.
Google Scholar
7
-
DfE. (2010). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): how legislation underpins implementation in England. Manchester: Department for Education (DfE) (gov.uk).15 March.
Google Scholar
8
-
Dyer, C. (2023). Patients launch legal action against AstraZeneca over its covid-19 vaccine. The British Medical Journal, 380(28 March), 725.
Google Scholar
9
-
Hickey, S. (2023). Class Action Commenced Over Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries. Sydney: Sydney Criminal Lawyers. 8 May.
Google Scholar
10
-
LAA. (2022). Legal aid: apply for exceptional case funding. London: Legal Aid Agency (LAA) (gov.uk).
Google Scholar
11
-
McIntosh, D., & Walton, R. (2018). Qualified one-way costs shifting: What constitutes an exception to the rules and when will the Court apply its discretion in relation to the cost award? Newcastle: DAC Beachcroft.
Google Scholar
12
-
MoJ. (2023). Part 19 - Parties and Group Litigation: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (justice.gov.uk).
Google Scholar
13
-
OPSS. (2021). OPSS supports new standard for battery safety - Button and coin batteries safety standard, PAS 7055:2021, is published and free to download. London: Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) (gov.uk).
Google Scholar
14
-
OPSS. (2023a). OPSS Product Safety and Consumers: Wave 3 BEIS Research Paper. London: Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) (gov.uk). February.
Google Scholar
15
-
OPSS. (2023b). OPSS Product Safety and Consumers: Wave 3 BEIS Technical Report. London: Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) (gov.uk). January.
Google Scholar
16
-
Park, S.-J., & Burns, H. (2022). Button battery injury - An update. Australian Journal of General Practice, 61(7), 471.
Google Scholar
17
-
Paull, J. (2021). Button batteries and child deaths: Market failure of unsafe products. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine Research, 5(3), 297-303.
Google Scholar
18
-
Paull, J. (2022). Silent Nursery: Button Battery Fatalities in Children — the Long Road from Externality to Obsolescence. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine Research, 6(3), 301-308.
Google Scholar
19
-
PLP. (nd). Short Guide 5: How to Apply for Legal Aid Funding for Judicial Review. London: Public Law Project (PLP).
Google Scholar
20
-
Tassell, D. (2023). Horror find in X-ray day after toddler ‘sent home by hospital staff. Brisbane: 7 News (7news.com.au). 5 June.
Google Scholar
21
-
Wallace, E., Revie, L., Sharland, E., & Mais, D. (2023). Prevention of Future Death Reports for Suicide submitted to coroners in England and Wales: January 2021 to October 2022. Newport: Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk). 29 March.
Google Scholar
22