Articles Posted in Dangerous Products

Published on:

hairdresser-gf51ec0d83_640-e1646839051297BrushX hot air brushes were recalled on February 17, 2022 due to the risks of electrocution or shock. If you were left with injuries due to electrocution or shock from a BrushX hot air brush, you should consult the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of the Moll Law Group about whether you have grounds to sue for damages. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved. When you’ve been harmed by a large company, it’s wise to pursue product liability lawsuits with a lawyer who understands how to mount a strong case for clients.

Give the Product Liability Lawyers of the Moll Law Group A Call

The BrushX hot air brushes were recalled because they weren’t designed with an immersion protection device. That means if you use the brush and it falls into water over your sink or bathtub while it’s plugged in, you could be electrocuted or shocked. Around 100,000 hot air brushes were affected by the recall: the BrushX One (the Styler, Dryer & Volumizer), as well as the BrushX Gen.2 hot air brushes.

The brushes in question have been sold in both black and combinations of black and pink. A “not waterproof” symbol marks the back of the brush.

Continue reading →

Published on:

child-ga845f3ba0_640-e1644290312265On February 2, 2022, certain Maxtrade’s Youth Coolster Mountopz All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) were recalled. The recall was issued because the ATVs did not comply with the mandatory federal ATV standard for safety. Notably, youth ATVs didn’t abide by the maximum speed limit for these vehicles when they are meant for children. ATVs are sold for minimum ages 6, 10, 12, or teens. Additionally, some of these recalled ATVs have parking brakes that don’t work to stop the ATV from moving, which could result in an accident. If an ATV caused you or your child injury, you should consult the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group about whether you have a claim. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Give Moll Law Group a Call to Discuss an ATV Injury Claim

The recall concerns Maxtrade’s Coolster Mountopz ATVs, models 3050-B, 3050-C, 3125-B2, 3125-CX-2, 3125-CX-3, 3125-XR8-U2, 3150-CXC, 3150-DX-4, 3175-S2, and 3175-U. They were sold in a range of colors and for a range of children’s ages between January 2007 through January 2021. They cost from $370 – $1,100.

The handlebars of these vehicles were stamped with “Coolster.” As a parent, you can look at the model numbers in the center of the rear axle to figure out whether your child’s vehicle was affected. Around 141,000 ATVs were recalled. Consumers have been told to immediately stop using the recalled ATVs. You can contact Maxtrade for a repair from an authorized repair stop.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Aerosol-Sunscreen-ProductLitigation has been filed against Johnson & Johnson after the discovery of benzene in their Neutrogena aerosol sunscreen products. A study by the pharmaceutical testing lab Valisure has revealed high concentrations of benzene in many sunscreen products. Two months later, Johnson & Johnson voluntarily recalled five of its Neutrogena and Aveeno aerosol sunscreens and warned consumers to stop using those products after they conducted internal testing that detected low-level benzene in certain sprays. Recently, plaintiffs petitioned the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking for the creation of a multidistrict litigation docket in connection with their claims. Those in Chicago who have been diagnosed with cancer and suspect it is related to sunscreen aerosol sprays in which benzene has been found should consult experienced product liability lawyers about whether they have claim.

These lawsuits include allegations that are almost identical. Specifically, they allege that the company’s sunscreen sprays are defective because they contain benzene. Benzene is harmful; as a carcinogen, it is linked to blood cancers.

Benzene was found in around 78 different batches of sunscreen and after-sun products for which benzene is not listed as an ingredient. The report specifies certain manufacturers whose products include benzene including:

  • Neutrogena
  • CVS Health
  • Banana Boat
  • BabyGanics
  • Coppertone
  • Walgreens
  • Aveeno

Continue reading →

Published on:

Earlier this week, U.S. consumer product manufacturing giant Johnson & Johnson announced that it will no longer be selling the company’s talc-based baby powder products in the United States and Canada. The announcement comes after years of litigation surrounding allegations that the company’s talc-based baby powder may cause cancer. The announcement also follows last year’s recall of a batch of baby powder that was found to have potentially unsafe levels of asbestos, the cancer-causing agent that was at the center of the litigation.

Baby Powder

Photo Credit: SewCream/Shutterstock.com

According to a recent news report, Johnson & Johnson stands behind the safety of its baby powder, and claims to have decided to stop selling the product due to shifting consumer habits, rather than safety concerns. Along those lines, a Johnson & Johnson representative issued a statement explaining that the company “remains steadfastly confident in the safety of talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder” and that it will “vigorously defend the product, its safety, and the unfounded allegations against it and the company in the courtroom.”

Published on:

FDA RecallEarlier this week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a news release requesting manufacturers to withdraw all products containing the popular heartburn drug, ranitidine, the active ingredient in the medication, Zantac. The order applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medications. In light of the ongoing COVID-19 national emergency, those who have medicine containing ranitidine on hand are being asked not to return the product to the pharmacy, as is typically recommended. Instead, the FDA is recommending the medication be destroyed according to the disposal suggestion contained in the medication guide or package insert. All formulations of ranitidine are impacted, including pills, injections, and compounded medications that include ranitidine.

The recent recall is the latest step in an escalating investigation surrounding a contaminant known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is commonly found in ranitidine. Through its research, the FDA found that the impurities in some ranitidine products increase over time when stored at higher temperatures, potentially resulting in dangerous levels of NDMA.

In its official statement, the FDA explained that it didn’t see unacceptable levels of NDMA in the many samples they tested. Nevertheless, since they did not know how or for how long the product might have been stored they decided that it should not be available to consumers and patients unless its quality could be assured.

Published on:

The truth is that manufacturers are most interested in making a profit. Some manufacturers place dangerous products into the stream of commerce, putting millions of lives at risk. Often, there is something more that could be done to create a safer product; however, manufacturers may need encouragement to make their products safer. This encouragement frequently comes from a manufacturer’s fear of legal liability associated with a lawsuit, such as an Illinois product liability claim.

e-cigarette

Photo Credit: Redpixel.pl / Shutterstock.com

Take cigarettes, for example. For decades, there has been widespread agreement that smoking is hazardous to health. Indeed, tobacco companies are still facing lawsuits brought on behalf of those who have died due to complications caused by smoking. However, over the years, society has become more informed about the dangers of tobacco, and more recently the trend has shifted away from smoking traditional tobacco cigarettes and toward “vaping.”

Published on:

juror chairs

Photo Credit: Crazy City Lady / Shutterstock.com

Yesterday, a six-person jury concluded that Roundup was a substantial cause of plaintiff’s non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The verdict sends a clear message to Bayer, the company that purchased Monsanto, and for the 11,000 plaintiffs in cases already filed in courts around the country – there is a link between glyphosate and cancer. Because of the case’s national importance, the jury’s recent decision will affect many Illinois toxic tort plaintiffs, as well as those across the country.

According to a recent news report covering the trial, the case involves a man who claimed that use of the defendant’s weed-killer, Round-Up, caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Evidently, the plaintiff used the weed-killer over 300 times in his 26-year career. The plaintiff also claims that the manufacturer attempted to influence scientists, regulators, and the general public regarding the safety of the product.

The case is important for several reasons. First, it is only the second case in which jurors have had to determine whether the chemical composition in Round-Up is a substantial factor in causing NHL. The defendant manufacturer claims that its product is safe for human use, regardless of exposure levels. However, the plaintiff argues numerous studies contradict the manufacturer’s assertions, showing that the risk of developing cancer increases with the level of exposure to the product. The only previous case involved a successful claim by a California man who recovered $289 million earlier last year.

Continue reading →

Published on:

When someone suffers injuries as a result of a defective or dangerous product, the potential defendants that may be held liable range from the company that designed the product to the manufacturer and even the retailer. Product liability cases involving product defects can arise from defects in manufacturing or defects in the product’s design. Manufacturing defect cases involve a defect in a product caused when the product was not manufactured according to its intended design. In contrast, design defect cases involve a defect in a product caused when the product’s design was unreasonably dangerous. There can also be marketing defects in cases in which there was an insufficient warning of the product’s dangers.

In an Illinois defective design case, a plaintiff must prove that the product had an unreasonably dangerous condition, the condition existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and the condition caused the plaintiff’s injuries. There are different tests courts use to determine whether a product is “unreasonably dangerous.” Under the consumer-expectation test, the question is whether a product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. In contrast, under the risk-utility test, the question is whether a product’s risks outweighed its benefits. The risk-utility test considers a number of different factors, including the feasibility of alternate designs, whether the design conformed to industry standards, the utility of the product, the likelihood of injury, and the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe condition.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Beach umbrellas can be a great way to avoid getting a sunburn at the beach. But on a windy day, they can also pose a significant danger. A strong wind can turn an umbrella into a dangerous object, with the potential to cause serious injuries. In addition to beach umbrellas possibly being lifted out of the sand, umbrellas can also come out of outdoor dining tables or even outdoor store displays.

Lawsuits against individuals or business owners based on an umbrella injury generally allege that the defendant was negligent in properly securing the umbrella. Even the government is a potential defendant in beach umbrella cases. If the incident occurs on a public beach, for example, the government may be responsible, particularly if the lifeguard was aware of the potential hazard caused by the wind but failed to minimize the danger.

In order to prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm, the defendant breached that duty, and an injury occurred that was proximately caused by the breach. The plaintiff has the burden to prove all four elements in a negligence claim. This means that the plaintiff has to present evidence that would allow a rational juror to reasonably conclude each of the elements of the claim is met.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Many people assume that since lead paint is no longer legal, there is nothing to worry about. However, although lead paint has been banned since 1978, many homes still have lead paint underneath the current coat of paint.

A Landlord’s Duty to Tenants

A landlord has a duty to tenants to keep the property in a certain condition and to make certain disclosures to tenants. If a home was built prior to 1978, renters must receive a lead-based paint pamphlet and any known information about the presence of lead-based paint. In Illinois, a landlord also has a special duty to minors. A landlord may be liable for injuries if the landlord knows or has reason to know that minors frequent the premises, there is a dangerous condition, minors are likely to be injured based on their failure to appreciate the risk, and the expense of remedying the condition is slight compared to the risk to minors.

Lead Paint Poisoning Claims

Generally, lead poisoning cases are based on the theory of negligence. Claims may include a negligent failure to maintain safe premises, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent repairs. Plaintiffs may also be able to assert a breach of the covenant to repair and the implied warranty of habitability, as well as fraud and product liability claims, among others.

Continue reading →

Contact Information