Dangerous Products Attorney Blog

Published on: August 23, 2016

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

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 →

Published on: July 21, 2016

E. Coli Outbreaks Can Cause Serious Symptoms for Illinois Victims, Give Rise to Liability

By Moll Law Group

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that about one in six people get sick from food-borne illnesses each year in the United States. Of these, around 3,000 people die as a result. In recent years, E. Coli outbreaks have become familiar to Americans as they continue to come up in the news, at times causing serious effects for victims.

E. Coli is a bacterium that can be transmitted by consuming contaminated food, including unwashed raw produce, undercooked beef, unpasteurized juice, and raw milk. The consumption of contaminated food can result in symptoms, the most common of which is diarrhea. However, in more serious cases, it can cause anemia or kidney failure, which can lead to death.

E. Coli generally lives in cattle, but it can also be found in other livestock. If meat containing E. Coli bacteria is not cooked to 160 degrees, E. Coli bacteria can survive and infect those who consume it. In addition, the meat can affect other food that comes into contact with the infected raw meat. Raw meat is the most likely cause for infection, but it can be transmitted through raw fruits and vegetables, or through raw milk or other dairy products.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 8, 2016

Pharmaceutical Companies May Be Held Liable for Failure to Warn Mothers of Potential Birth Defects

By Moll Law Group

Court Upholds $3 Million Verdict for Failing to Warn of Birth Defects

According to one news source, a court of appeals recently upheld a $3 million verdict against a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson after a baby was born with severe birth injuries as a result of medication taken during the mother’s pregnancy. The baby’s parents brought a claim against the company, and the jury found the company liable for failing to warn the mother’s doctors of the risk of birth injuries if she took Topamax during her first trimester.

The mother took Topamax, a drug prescribed to help prevent seizures and migraine headaches. While she was pregnant, she took the drug to treat migraines—but she did not know of the dangerous effects it could have on her baby. Research has shown that 3.8 percent of children exposed to Topamax in utero during the first trimester have oral birth defects. In particular, cleft lip and cleft palate are known risks.

The couple’s daughter was born with a bilateral cleft palate and lip. The girl has had to undergo over 14 procedures, including surgeries, to treat the birth defects. She has also suffered hearing loss, speech difficulties, and bullying because of her speech and appearance. The parents were awarded $1.5 million for future health care expenses, and their daughter was awarded $1.5 million in non-economic damages.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 8, 2016

Attorney Fails to Make Timely Objection, so Judgment in Product Liability Case Must Stand

By Moll Law Group

Even when individuals have a valid claim, a lawyer’s missteps can have serious consequences for their clients. In a recent case, a judgment in favor of the defendant could not be revisited because the issue raised on appeal was not raised by the plaintiffs’ lawyer during the trial.

The Facts of the Case

A husband and wife filed a lawsuit against makers and distributors of microwave popcorn and butter flavoring. The husband ate microwave popcorn every day for 20 years. They alleged that the products caused him to develop the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans.

At trial, the experts disagreed about what caused the husband’s sickness. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had a number of expert witnesses who testified about his sickness and its likely cause. One of the defendant’s experts was a doctor who testified about articles that were not provided to the plaintiffs for review. The plaintiff’s lawyer objected, arguing that the witness could not testify about facts about which the plaintiffs did not have information. He argued that the plaintiffs could not adequately prepare for such testimony, and the testimony was unfair. The judge agreed, and the expert’s testimony was stricken. Accordingly, the judge instructed the jury to ignore the testimony they had heard from the expert. The trial continued, and the jury found in favor of the defendant.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 17, 2016

Products Liability Cases in Illinois

By Moll Law Group

There are a number of theories of recovery for individuals injured by defective products, and many lawsuits reference more than just one theory of recovery. In Illinois, claims arising from defective products often allege, among other potential avenues, a violation of an express warranty, a violation of an implied warranty, negligence, and strict liability.

Strict liability claims in Illinois do not require that the plaintiff prove that a defendant acted negligently. They focus on the condition of the product instead. Generally, under a strict liability theory under Illinois law, a plaintiff is required to establish that (1) the product contained a defective condition; (2) the condition made the product unreasonably dangerous; (3) the condition existed when the product left the control of the defendant; (4) the plaintiff suffered an injury; and (5) the injury was proximately caused by the product’s condition.

The decision of which claim or claims to bring depends on the facts of each case. These considerations may include the warnings the sellers provided, the relationship between the injured party and the manufacturer or retailer, the location of the defendants, and the statute of limitations. There is also a question of which companies to sue. It may make sense to sue the manufacturer directly or to sue a retailer. There are a number of factors to consider. For example, many products are made in China by a number of different manufacturers. Suing manufacturers in other countries can be complicated, and understanding whom to sue and how to do so is essential to a successful case.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 12, 2016

FDA Warns Women of Potential Risks of Essure

By Moll Law Group

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that it would take actions to provide women with information about the risks of using Essure, a form of permanent birth control. This form of birth control involves inserting flexible coils through the cervix and vagina into the fallopian tubes. After about three months, scar tissue forms around the coils and makes a barrier in order to prevent conception.

The FDA recognized that there are potential complications related to these types of implantable forms of sterilization and that it should take actions in order to address these risks. These actions include requiring a clinical study to assess the risks and requiring warnings on the product labels. The FDA stated that the actions recognize that “more rigorous research is needed to better understand if certain women are at heightened risk of complications.”

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects public health by ensuring that food and drugs are safe for people to use. The FDA’s position is that while Essure is safe for most women, some women may be at risk for complications. Those complications may include pain, tears, bleeding, and allergic reactions.

Continue reading →