We are happy to announce that we're celebrating 30 years! →

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

The World Health Organization (WHO) published a final report in March 2015 indicating that the commonly used herbicide glyphosate, packaged and marketed under the retail label Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which performed the assessment, based its conclusion on opinions from 17 different experts hailing from 11 countries. The group met in Lyon, France to discuss the chemical’s potential dangers, in addition to five other organophosphate-based pesticides.

In its report, IARC also noted that the product garnered roughly $6 billion in annual sales. The chemical was first developed and marketed by major agricultural chemical maker Monsanto in the 1970s.

Today, roughly 80 percent of all genetically modified crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, allowing producers to spray a hearty dose of the herbicide on the crops to kill other weeds that may affect crop health and yields. Some sources suggest that between 1996 and 2011, the planting of Roundup Ready crops increased, correlating to the use of roughly 527 million pounds of herbicides in the U.S. The product is also commonly used in private lawn maintenance and home gardening.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Football can be a dangerous sport, even for players who do not sustain serious injuries on the field. Recently, more research has come to light on the link between football and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). CTE is a disease resulting from repeated injuries to the head—an experience common among football players.

Lawsuits against Football Leagues

A number of lawsuits have been brought against football leagues by former and current players. In general, the lawsuits concentrate on the allegation that the league was aware of the risks caused by head injuries and that the league hid the dangers or did not fully disclose them to players. The lawsuits also argue that the NFL failed to properly supervise, regulate, and monitor activities to minimize the risk of injury to players. Some players have also argued that the league pushed injured players back into the game.

Some players allege that they have suffered from numerous health issues as a result, including dementia, depression, and Alzheimer’s. Families have even brought claims on behalf of players who have committed suicide.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In 2013, wholesale retailer Costco faced serious liability after packages of frozen berries sold at its locations were found to contain hepatitis A. The outbreak had sweeping implications, with a class action lawsuit indicating that up to 25,000 consumers may have been exposed to the dangerous virus. The berries were manufactured by Townsend Farms and labeled as an Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend. Soon after a product recall was initiated, Costco issued a warning advising individuals who may have consumed affected bags of the product to obtain a hepatitis A vaccine shot. The company stated that it would provide the shots free of charge to affected individuals.

Costco is facing another wave of liability after reports surfaced recently that the same frozen berries have led to an outbreak of hepatitis A in Canada. The retailer is again offering vaccinations to affected consumers. The frozen berries were manufactured by Nature’s Touch and sold exclusively at Costco stores in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Labrador, and Newfoundland. So far, at least 13 different cases of hepatitis A have been traced back to the contaminated berries. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has instituted a recall for the products, which likely sickened individuals between February 2016 and March 2016, resulting in at least three hospitalizations.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If a case proceeds to trial, generally the parties leave the issues to the jury to decide. However, the judge still has to make decisions throughout the trial, including ones involving the admissibility of evidence. Sometimes, these decisions can have a huge effect on a trial—and sometimes, if a judge makes a decision later found to be incorrect, there may need to be a new trial altogether.

In a recent case, a man was injured after he was hit by a dump truck driver hired by an asphalt company. The plaintiff sued the asphalt company for negligence and negligent hiring. At trial, the company tried to exclude evidence that at the time of the accident, the truck driver had a suspended license, and the truck was uninsured. The judge allowed the evidence about the truck being uninsured to be admitted at the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge should not have allowed the evidence about the lack of insurance. The court of appeals agreed, finding that the court should not have admitted the evidence and that this information was prejudicial. The court found that in a claim about negligent hiring and general negligence, evidence of lack of insurance coverage was irrelevant and should not have been admitted.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Cannabis is still a controversial topic in the United States. Although some states have deregulated marijuana and even allowed for recreational use, others have maintained criminal liability and punishments for the possession and distribution of marijuana. As the legal and regulatory landscape for cannabis continues to change, certain companies specializing in cannabis-based products are cropping up in states that allow medical or recreational consumption. Since this is such a new frontier, however, there are few safety measures in place to ensure that patients and patrons who purchase these products aren’t receiving a potentially dangerous product.

The federal government recently reaffirmed its long-standing position that federal prosecutors should not focus their resources on prosecuting cannabis-related crimes. In 2009, the Department of Justice issued a memo instructing federal prosecutors to forgo investigating criminal activity involving cannabis if the suspect’s conduct clearly conformed with the state’s medical marijuana laws. Five years later, Congress enacted an amendment that barred the Department of Justice from allocating federal funds to programs that would prevent states from passing legislation allowing medical marijuana.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If you are injured at work in Illinois, workers’ compensation will normally cover your medical bills and some lost wages. Workers’ compensation laws allow workers who are injured on the job to recover compensation without having to file a lawsuit. However, this system also requires employees to give up their right to sue their employers for negligence.

Workers’ Compensation in Illinois

Workers’ compensation is intended to protect workers who are injured or killed in the workplace. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act was passed in 1911. Employees gave up their general rights to sue their employers, but they were able to recover compensation for injuries more quickly. In general, the Act is the only way for employees to recover for job-related injuries. However, there are certain exceptions to that rule. For example, an employee may be able to sue an employer as a result of intentional conduct. In addition, a negligent third party may also be held liable for injuries.

Suing a Third Party for Negligence

Someone injured at work may be able to bring suit against a third party if the party’s negligence contributed to causing the injury. A third party is another person or organization—not your employer or a co-worker—that is partly responsible for causing the injury. Some examples of third-party claims are suing a manufacturer for a defective product, suing another person or organization working at the same site, suing a manufacturer for a toxic substance, suing the driver of another car, or suing the owner of the land where you are working.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pharmaceutical companies have made some incredible breakthroughs when it comes to developing drugs that can help people cope with a variety of conditions. In some cases, these drugs can provide a life-changing solution for people who suffer from painful and debilitating conditions. For all their benefits, however, pharmaceuticals can pose serious and life-threatening dangers to patients. Two of the most recent drugs to come under scrutiny for posing an unreasonable risk to patients are Prilosec and Nexium. Both drugs are manufactured by AstraZeneca and fall within the pharmaceutical category of proton pump inhibitors. This type of medication is commonly prescribed to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD). First approved in 1988 under the brand name Losec, Prilosec is a first-generation proton pump inhibitor. Nexium is a second-generation version of the drug that was marketed as an improved version of Prilosec.

According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), proton pump inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of chronic kidney disease. The risk of developing this condition increases when the patient takes the drug over a prolonged period of time. Cases involving kidney-related conditions have already surfaced in patients who have taken Nexium and Prilosec. A man in Tennessee, for example, has been diagnosed as having interstitial nephritis, renal failure, and a heart attack after taking Prilosec and Nexium pursuant to a physician’s prescription.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Medical malpractice claims often require additional evidence, including expert testimony, affidavits, and special administrative procedures. For this reason, the first issue in any case alleging the negligence of a medical provider may be whether or not the allegations fall under medical malpractice in the first place.

In a recent case, a plaintiff filed a claim based on a hospital’s alleged failure to properly maintain equipment used to sterilize surgical instruments. The plaintiff alleged that he had developed an infection after having spine surgery at the hospital, and that the infection was the result of improperly sterilized instruments. However, that state’s supreme court had to decide whether the claims actually fell under the state’s medical malpractice act, considering the definition of malpractice. The hospital argued that the plaintiff’s claim fell under the definition of malpractice in the act.

The court decided that the hospital’s failure to properly maintain its equipment fell under the definition of medical malpractice. In addition, since the act used the term “health care provider” rather than “physician,” it included treatment related to the hospital’s capacity as a health care provider, rather than just treatment provided by a doctor there.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon may be slapped with higher than anticipated costs for the settlement of the nearly 50,000 product liability claims brought regarding the company’s transvaginal mesh device. Last year, Johnson & Johnson agreed to enter a $5 million settlement with a plaintiff who sued Johnson & Johnson for injuries she sustained after being implanted with an Ethicon transvaginal mesh device. The news about the settlement broke in November 2015 when the attorney representing the plaintiff filed a motion seeking approval of his attorney fees, reports Bloomberg news.

In January 2016, Johnson & Johnson agreed to a $120 million settlement to resolve the first two to three thousand transvaginal mesh lawsuits filed against it. With news of the $5 million settlement, however, the settlement of these claims could cost the health care company to shell out more dough to settle additional claims.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

People of all ages can cause accidents—even children. But in cases in which the parents did nothing wrong, when can a child be held liable for his or her actions? One state’s supreme court addressed this issue in a recent case.

While a woman was babysitting a four-year-old, the boy threw a rubber dolphin toy at her, hitting her in the eye. Since the woman had previous eye injuries, the woman lost her sight in that eye as a result of the incident. The woman brought suit against the boy’s parents for negligent supervision, which was quickly denied. In addition, the woman sued the boy individually for his own negligence.

That state’s supreme court held that the four-year-old could not be held liable for negligence. The court decided that children under the age of five30 could never be held liable for negligence. The court reasoned that children under five years old have a limited ability to appreciate how their actions could result in harm and that they have a limited ability to control impulses. Accordingly, the court stated that there was very little possibility that a child under five years old would be deserving of moral criticism or capable of being deterred by the law. In addition, requiring a child to testify about his or her ability to understand consequences and impulse control is especially difficult when a trial would likely occur years after the actual incident.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
180 N Stetson Ave 35th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
T 312.462.1700F 312.756.0045E info@molllawgroup.com
We represent people nationwide including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas–Fort Worth, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Bernardino-Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa–St. Petersburg, and Washington, D.C.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Moll Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design