Dangerous Products Attorney Blog

Published on: January 23, 2017

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

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 →

Published on: September 12, 2016

Dangerous and Defective Strollers Injure Thousands of Children Every Year

By Moll Law Group

Many people are quick to blame parents for children’s injuries. Yet often, the parents are not to blame. Defective products such as toys, cribs, and baby carriers can cause children serious injuries.

If a defective product is to blame, a parent can sue the manufacturer or anyone else in the chain of distribution, seeking compensation for their child’s injuries. If a product is defective, it generally is defective by its design or has a defect in how it was made when it was manufactured. For example, a defective design might exist when a product has an unreasonably dangerous design, such as a stroller that too easily tips over. A manufacturing design might exist when a piece was left out when it was built, thereby creating a danger. A product could also be defective because the safety warnings are inadequate to warn the consumer of a potential danger associated with the product.

New Study Shows Injury Risk Posed by Strollers and Baby Carriers

A new study shows that over 17,000 children are treated in emergency rooms every year for stroller and baby carrier-related injuries. According to one news source, the study, conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, looked at emergency room visits from 1990 to 2010. It found that over these years, almost 361,000 children had been treated for such injuries. This equates to about two children an hour, or around 50 children per day.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 23, 2016

Manufacturer Not Liable after Man Trapped under Lawn Mower Because He Failed to Purchase Optional Safety Equipment

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a man’s decision to forego optional safety equipment later prevented compensation for his injuries. The man was riding his lawn mower when the mower fell off the edge of an embankment and rolled on top of him. He was trapped under the lawn mower, and tragically he died from suffocation. The man’s wife alleged that the lawn mower manufacturer was negligent because the machine did not come with a rollover protection system. However, the defendant pointed out that the man had the option of adding the rollover protection system when he bought the lawn mower, which he neglected to purchase.

A federal appeals court dismissed the plaintiff’s case, holding that, according to the optional equipment doctrine, a manufacturer generally will not be found negligent if a purchaser had the option of buying safety equipment that would have prevented the accident. The court explained that the doctrine may apply where a buyer is knowledgeable regarding the product’s use and the availability of the safety feature, there are normal circumstances in which the product without the optional equipment would not be unreasonably dangerous, and the buyer can balance the risks and benefits with regard to the buyer’s use of the product. Since the rollover protection system was an option when the man bought the lawn mower, the manufacturer could not be held negligent for failing to install the equipment.

The Optional Equipment Doctrine in Illinois

The optional equipment doctrine arises in the context of negligence in manufacturing. It is not exactly a defense, but instead it is a way a defendant can show that it fulfilled its duty to the purchaser. That is, the defendant, by informing buyers that an optional feature is available and can make the product safer for certain users, may have satisfied its duty to make a product safe.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 16, 2016

Automated Driving Presents New Risks for Drivers

By Moll Law Group

Technology in cars is advancing quickly, and many see self-driving cars as the future of transportation. However, these cars present new risks, including privacy concerns and safety risks. Automated cars, also referred to as self-driving vehicles, or autonomous or driverless vehicles, can include a wide range of technologies. These include automated parallel parking assistance, automatic braking, lane-centering, and complete performance of all driving functions. Automated driving can offer many benefits to consumers. For one, it can be very convenient. They also offer many safety benefits. The NHTSA conducted a survey and discovered that over 90 percent of all car accident deaths are caused at least in part by driver inattention or other errors that may be preventable with automated driving. For example, human drivers may be distracted, speed, disobey traffic rules, or misjudge road conditions.

Yet, while they offer many benefits, they also present new legal issues. One issue that may arise in these automated cars is the question of who is the driver. That is, is it the person behind the wheel or the manufacturer of the technology? Laws today generally only consider the person behind the wheel to be in control of the vehicle, but that may change as automated cars become more prevalent, and the technology makes further advances. Also, there are concerns that cars could now be targeted for cyber attacks, which could cause liability to shift to the hacker or to the company responsible for the software.

Several states already allow automated cars, or at least the testing of automated cars on their roads. And many manufacturers are pushing for legal changes that support the use of automated cars.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 13, 2016

Food Poisoning May Give Rise to Products Liability Claims and Result in Compensation for Victims

By Moll Law Group

Injuries that occur as a result of food poisoning can give rise to a number of different claims for the harm suffered. Those who seek compensation for personal injuries resulting from the consumption of contaminated food or beverages can assert claims based on negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, violation of food laws, and strict liability.

For one, individuals can allege breach of warranty claims to recover compensation for their injuries. Breach of warranty claims can include express and implied warranties. For example, Illinois courts have found liability for a breach of an implied warranty of fitness when a manufacturer sold poisoned flour. In order to recover in a breach of warranty claim, there generally must be privity of contract. Privity of contract often requires that the injured person have purchased the goods from the manufacturer. This can include sellers of goods as well, yet courts have been hesitant to extend liability in such cases, particularly if the seller had no way to inspect the goods.

General Mills Expands Recall of Flour

General Mills announced an expansion to its flour recall resulting from a possible E. Coli outbreak. According to one news source, the updated recall covers different varieties of flour of the Gold Medal and Signature Kitchens brands, produced through February of this year. Four new cases were reported, causing the company to expand the recall. The outbreak has already caused illnesses to 46 people throughout 21 states. Thirteen of those people have required hospitalization. One person suffered from kidney failure as a result.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 30, 2016

Jury Rejects Claim Against Doorknob Cover Manufacturer After Child Escapes

By Moll Law Group

A 23-month-old boy tragically drowned in a pond after he climbed out of his crib and walked outside in the middle of the night. After the accident, the boy’s parents filed a product liability case against the company that manufactured the doorknob cover they had installed on their front door. The doorknob cover was a safety measure to prevent children from opening doors. The boy’s parents used the doorknob cover on the front door of their home to stop him from opening the door. However, the company argued that the doorknob cover was not defective or unreasonably dangerous if it were used properly.

At trial, evidence showed that after the boy began climbing out of his crib, to help ensure their son’s safety, the couple began using a chain lock on the front door in addition to the doorknob cover. On the night of the accident, the boy’s mother locked the tab lock on the doorknob but forgot to latch the chain lock. The boy was discovered the next morning, and the doorknob cover was on the floor in two pieces. Investigation notes with social services stated that the parents knew the boy was able to defeat the doorknob cover, which was why they installed the chain lock. However, the father denied making that statement.

The parents argued that evidence of their knowledge of the boy’s ability to defeat the doorknob cover should be excluded because it was irrelevant, and at most it was only a contributing cause but not the sole cause of the accident. They also argued that it was overly prejudicial. Despite their objections, the evidence was allowed at trial.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 27, 2016

Consumer Safety Commission Recalls Over 500,000 Hoverboards, Warns of Serious Safety Risk

By Moll Law Group

The safety risks of certain products are not always immediately apparent. After many U.S. consumers purchased hoverboards for the holidays this past year, many months went by before the Consumer Safety Commission warned of serious risks in most hoverboards. Product liability claims arise from situations in which defective products injure individuals or cause property damage.

Product Liability Claims

Product liability claims appear when the sale of a product causes injury, death, or other harm to consumers. There are a number of different ways in which individuals can hold sellers or manufacturers liable. For example, in Illinois, consumers may assert liability for negligence, strict liability, violation of express warranty, or violation of implied warranty.

Express warranty actions arise if the seller of a product claims that the product has a particular quality or will perform in a certain way. Implied warranty claims generally arise when a product is not of average quality or is not able to be used for its ordinary purpose. Negligence requires that the defendant have acted negligently, or without the required care. In contrast, strict liability claims do not require any showing of negligence but focus on the defective product itself. A seller can also be liable if it fails to adequately warn consumers of the dangers associated with the product.

Continue reading →