Dangerous Products Attorney Blog

Published on: April 9, 2019

Seizures Reported Following E-Cigarette Use Especially in Youth – FDA Report Indicates

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.

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.”

Continue reading →

Published on: March 20, 2019

Verdict in Monsanto Trial – Roundup a Substantial Cause of Plaintiff’s non-Hodgkins Lymphoma

By Moll Law Group

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: May 19, 2017

Defective Design Lawsuit Claims Keurig Coffee Machine Caused House Fire

By Moll Law Group

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: April 21, 2017

Beach Umbrellas Can Pose a Serious Danger in Strong Winds

By Moll Law Group

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: March 10, 2017

The Continuing Danger of Lead Paint in Chicago-Area Homes

By Moll Law Group

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 →

Published on: February 13, 2017

Court Upholds Jury’s Verdict Finding Manufacturer Liable for Defective Ladder

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a federal appeals court found in favor of an Illinois man who alleged his ladder was defectively designed. The man fell off his ladder while he was replacing the screws on his gutter and suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. He later suffered from seizures, dementia, and quadriplegia.

After the accident, he brought a lawsuit against the ladder’s manufacturer, claiming that the ladder was defectively designed and that the defective design had caused the ladder to collapse. He argued the company did not design the ladder to accommodate the weight of people at or near 200 pounds. He weighed 224 pounds shortly before the accident.

The case went to trial, and the jury found in the man’s favor. The jury awarded him over $11 million in damages. Afterwards, the manufacturer argued it was entitled to a new trial. It contended that the man did not present sufficient evidence that the manufacturer had defectively designed the ladder.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 23, 2017

Chrysler Hit with $40 Million Verdict Due to Exploding Gas Tank in Jeep Grand Cherokee

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, Chrysler challenged a $40 million verdict against it after a tragic accident involving one of its Jeep vehicles. Evidently, a four-year-old was killed in a collision when a pickup truck hit the back of a 1999 Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee. When the pickup truck hit the Jeep, the Jeep’s gas tank was punctured, and the car caught fire. The child was in the backseat and died in the fire. The child’s parents filed a lawsuit against Chrysler, alleging that it acted with a reckless or wanton disregard for human life in its design or sale of the Grand Cherokee. They also alleged Chrysler breached a duty to warn the public of the danger.

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found in favor of the parents. The parents were awarded $30 million in damages for their son’s wrongful death and $10 million in damages for pain and suffering. Chrysler was found to be 99 percent at fault.

Chrysler appealed the decision, arguing the court should not have denied its motion for a directed verdict. Before the jury deliberated, Chrysler had filed a motion for a directed verdict on the parents’ claims that Chrysler acted with a reckless or wanton disregard for human life and failure to warn. The claims were based on the allegations that Chrysler knew that the location of the fuel tank in the 1999 Grand Cherokee was dangerous but continued to manufacture and sell the car, failing to warn the public.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 27, 2016

Cuisinart Recalls Millions of Food Processors with Defective Blades

By Moll Law Group

Nowadays, when a consumer buys a product, they assume that it has gone through sufficient testing and that it will be safe to use for its intended purpose. However, manufacturers can be too quick to put out a product, or a product may show defects over time. Products can be not only defective but also dangerous, and consumers may be entitled to compensation for injuries caused by the defect.

Product liability claims can be based on different theories of recovery, including strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation. Strict liability claims require a showing that a product was unreasonably dangerous, that the defect was present when it left the manufacturer’s control, and that it caused the plaintiff’s injuries. These claims generally arise either as manufacturing defects, design defects, or marketing defects. In some cases, a defect can be difficult to prove. In others, however, the manufacturer will actually recall the product due to safety concerns.

Product Recalls

There are different types of recalls that can occur when a product is defective. Sometimes recalls are mandatory, which occur when an agency or court requires the manufacturer to issue a recall. Recalls can also be voluntary and occur when the manufacturer decides to issue a recall on its own—although even voluntary recalls can be influenced by the federal agencies.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 23, 2016

Plaintiff’s Expert’s Conclusions Protected by Work Product Doctrine

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a man sued the maker of his utility terrain vehicle (UTV) after the UTV overturned, and the roof failed, causing his injuries. The man designated four expert witnesses to testify in his case at trial. For one of the experts he designated, the man said the expert would testify as to the UTV’s performance, the forces involved in the accident, and factors affecting the UTV’s performance. The man did not explain the expert’s analysis or his conclusions on the issues in the case. Shortly afterward, the man told the defendant and the court that he was no longer going to use the expert as one of his witnesses. However, the defendant then requested to have the expert’s deposition taken, seemingly to find out what his conclusions were.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that the expert’s opinions and conclusions were protected by the “work product doctrine”—a doctrine that protects materials prepared for or by an attorney in anticipation of litigation. The defendant argued the plaintiff had waived any protection under the work product protection because, as an expert, the conclusions would have been disclosed.

The trial court agreed with the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had waived the protections of the work product doctrine by designating the expert as a witness. However, the state’s supreme court reversed. The court concluded that a party designating an expert witness by itself is not a waiver of the work product doctrine. It also concluded that in this case, the man’s actions did not waive the work product privilege. As a result, the expert’s conclusions were protected under the work product doctrine, and the plaintiff did not have disclose them to the defendants.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 7, 2016

Baby Powder Found to Cause Cancer; Moll Law Group Can Help

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this month, a St. Louis jury awarded a woman over $70 million in a personal injury lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the company’s baby powder caused her ovarian cancer. According to one national news source covering the case, the plaintiff relied on several studies that have linked the long-term use of talcum powder, especially in the genital area, to ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson denies any claims that its baby powder is unsafe and told reporters that the company plans to appeal the case to a higher court.

This case is not the first that was filed against Johnson & Johnson alleging that its baby powder caused cancer, and it certainly will not be the last. In fact, there have been over 2,000 women who have filed product liability cases against Johnson & Johnson since evidence linking baby powder to cancer surfaced. Not all cases have made it through the trial process, but of those that have, several have resulted in multi-million-dollar verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.

The American Cancer Association explains on its website that “studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk.” It is unclear if there is a link between talcum powder and other forms of cancer. In some cases, judges have dismissed plaintiffs’ cases against the manufacturers and marketers of talcum powder, explaining that the evidence linking the powder to cancer is tenuous. However, as time goes on, it seems the link between the two is becoming more and more substantiated.

Continue reading →