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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Civil trials are often thought of as determinations about whether a defendant is liable. However, the issue of liability is only one of the issues decided in a trial. Trials also determine the amount of compensation awarded to the injured party. In a recent case against city and county governments, the defendants admitted liability but proceeded to trial only on the issue of damages.

A woman sued the city and county after being injured in a car accident. The woman was riding on a county bus when the bus was hit by a city fire department van. She was thrown from the bus and landed on the street. She then sued the city and county. The city and county admitted that they were liable, but they continued to trial on the issue of damages. The defendants argued that a spinal fusion surgery the woman had after the accident was an unnecessary procedure. The case was decided in favor of the woman for $575,203, including her costs for the spinal fusion surgery, and an appeals court affirmed the decision.

Governmental Immunity

Tort immunity afforded to the federal, state, and local governments generally makes them immune to lawsuits. It comes from the idea that a government that makes the laws cannot break the laws. It was also thought that lawsuits against the government could be so numerous that the government would never be able to pay them all. However, governmental immunity has been modified in recent years to permit tort actions against certain entities for specific reasons.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Everyone knows that you should wear a seat belt. But can a victim be held liable for failing to wear a seat belt? In a recent case, a state supreme court allowed a defendant to argue that a plaintiff was partially at fault for her own injuries for failing to use a seat belt.

In that case, the woman was in a car accident when she was sitting in the backseat of someone’s car. The driver of the car ran into a parked excavator, and the woman sued the driver and his employer. The defendants argued that the woman was at fault, since she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. At the time the case was argued, Arkansas law generally did not allow evidence of a failure to wear a seat belt to be used in civil cases. However, the court found that this law actually regulated a court procedure, which could only be regulated by the courts. Therefore, the law was unconstitutional and could not be enforced, and the seat belt defense could be raised.

Seat Belt Defenses in Illinois

In Illinois, a defendant normally cannot raise the issue of a party’s failure to wear a seat belt as a defense. In 1985, the Illinois Supreme Court held that evidence of damages caused by a party’s failure to use a seat belt was not admissible with respect to either the question of liability or the question of damages. At that time, there was no law requiring people to wear seat belts, so the plaintiff did not have a duty to wear one.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Los medicamentos han permitido a muchos que sufren de enfermedades y condiciones crónicas a sentirse mejor y seguir sus vida cotidianas. En la mayoría de los casos, estos medicamentos tienen poco o ningún efecto secundario. En otros casos, sin embargo, los efectos secundarios resultan ser muy peligroso e incluso mortal. Recientemente, varios informes han indicado que Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid y otros fármacos de la misma clase, pueden plantear graves riesgos de lesiones a los pacientes que los toman. Estos medicamentos se clasifican como inhibidores de la bomba de protones (IBP) y se utilizan con frecuencia para tratar la acidez estomacal crónica, trastornos de reflujo ácido, enfermedad de úlcera péptica (PUD), o enfermedad de reflujo gastroesofágico (ERGE). Aproximadamente el 20 por ciento de los estadounidenses sufren de ERGE según los informes.

Un número de demandas han sido presentadas en contra de AstraZeneca, el fabricante de estos medicamentos. Los pacientes que tomaron los medicamentos durante un período mínimo de tiempo han experimentado una serie de condiciones dolorosas y debilitantes como la daños al riñón, nefritis intersticial, insuficiencia renal, demencia, ataques al corazón y más. En muchos casos, estas condiciones causaron lesiones permanentes que alteraron para siempre la calidad de vida. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A recent study has provided further evidence demonstrating a link between the diabetes drug Actos and bladder cancer. The findings were published in The BMJ and involve a study of roughly 146,000 patients treated for diabetes and bladder cancer between 2000 and 2013. According to the Canadian researchers who performed the study, consuming Actos increases the risk of developing bladder cancer by 63 percent.

The study also reported that the risk of developing bladder cancer increases if the patient takes Actos for two years or more, or if the patient consumes a minimum of 28,000 milligrams throughout their life. The researchers have also found a link between patients who have taken Avandia (rosiglitazone), another prescription drug used to treat diabetes that is within the same class of medicines as Actos.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Medications have enabled many of us who suffer from illnesses and chronic conditions to feel better and go about our daily lives. In most instances, these medications have little to no side effects. In other cases, however, the side effects turn out to be incredibly dangerous and even fatal. Recently, a number of reports have indicated that Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid and other drugs of the same class, may pose serious risks of injury to patients who take them. These medications are classified as Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) and are frequently used to treat chronic heartburn, acid reflux disorders, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Roughly 20 percent of Americans reportedly suffer from GERD.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of these medications. Patients who took the drugs for a minimum period of time have experienced a number of painful and debilitating conditions like renal failure, interstitial nephritis, kidney failure, dementia, heart attacks and more. In many cases, these conditions caused permanent injuries that forever altered their quality of life.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Some activities are inherently risky, and often patrons are required to sign a waiver of liability before participating. However, the scope of the waiver may be limited by law, and specific portions could be found invalid by a court if they are challenged. In a recent case, a woman sued a hot air ballooning company after being injured by a balloon. She was waiting in line to ride in the hot air balloon when the balloon’s basket struck and injured her. The woman sued the ballooning company for negligence. Originally, the court found that her claims were barred because she signed a waiver of liability before riding in the hot air balloon. However, on appeal, the state’s supreme court held that the waiver of liability violated public policy and was unenforceable.

The court stated that generally a waiver will be invalid if it contains misrepresentations, if it is too broad, or if it is ambiguous. In this case, the woman signed a waiver to ride the hot air balloon while she was waiting in line. The court found that the waiver the woman signed to go in the balloon was unenforceable because it was overly broad and all-inclusive.

The waiver exempted the company from liability for “all risks of any and every kind” arising from participation in hot air balloon activities with the company. The court noted that it was not clear whether or not the woman would have expected that risks resulting from standing in line would be covered by the waiver, particularly since she did not have to return the waiver prior to getting in line. She also did not have an opportunity to bargain over or negotiate the terms contained in the waiver. For these reasons, the court found that the waiver was unenforceable.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This month, a federal judge in West Virginia dismissed 149 product liability actions brought against C.R. Bard involving its transvaginal mesh device products after the parties entered into a settlement. The exact terms of the settlement agreement have not been revealed.

The company’s pelvic products are intended to treat women who suffer from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Thousands of women reported experiencing severe complications after the device was implanted, however, including cramping, abdominal pain, bleeding, painful intercourse, and more. In many cases, women required additional surgeries to remove the devices, which often migrated out of their original locations, and to repair the resulting internal damage. Although some injuries were addressed through the follow-up procedures, many women are facing long-term or permanent injuries associated with the products.

Thousands of lawsuits have been brought against Bard alleging that the Avaulta product was defective, resulting in the formation of a Multi-District Litigation proceeding, known as MDL No. 2187. An MDL is similar to a class action in that a number of plaintiffs with common injuries and causes of action are grouped together. It differs from a class action, however, in that each plaintiff must still plead and prove his or her individual claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft do not have to be professional drivers. They can be any person with a car and a smartphone. And while drivers may have their own personal insurance, it often does not cover business activities.

In general, drivers’ personal car insurance policies do not provide coverage when drivers are using their cars as transportation for companies like Uber and Lyft. And the companies’ insurance often does not cover them in all of their business-related activities—leaving them and other drivers at risk if they are involved in an accident.

For example, if a driver gets in an accident on the way to pick up a passenger, the company’s insurance may not cover the accident because no passenger was in the car at the time. This means that once the driver submits the claim to his or her insurance company, the insurance company could deny the claim because the driver was conducting business activity. The ride-share company may also deny coverage because no passengers were in the car at the time of the accident. This could mean that the driver is responsible for paying for his or her own damages and injuries, as well as those of the other driver. If the driver is unable to pay, injured parties may have no recourse.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Some people may think that safety issues associated with pet food are geared solely toward ensuring their animals’ health. The federal government recently shed light on the issue, informing a pet food company that the presence of salmonella in its products could harm more than the animals who consume it.

Pet food manufacturing company Answers Pet Food, owned and operated by Lystn LLC, received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration indicating that its products tested positive for Salmonella. The tests involved the company’s Detailed Answers Chicken Formula dog food product.

Salmonella is a type of bacteria that can be found in raw food products like beef, milk, poultry, eggs, and fresh produce. Individuals who consume Salmonella or otherwise come into contact with the bacteria can experience severe illnesses, including vomiting, diarrhea, cramping, fever, and even death. The elderly, children, and those with compromised immune systems are most susceptible to the bacteria, often requiring hospitalization to resolve the resulting symptoms.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, we reported about a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe injuries after a Da Vinci surgical robot device malfunctioned during a procedure. Now, the developer and manufacturer of the Da Vinci robotic surgery device, Intuitive Surgical, has entered into a settlement with the plaintiff following the close of a two-week trial. The settlement came on the third day of the jury’s deliberations over whether to award the woman compensation for damages to her bowel region that occurred during a routine hysterectomy procedure. The exact terms of the compromise, including the amount of compensation, are unknown at this time.

The plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries when the scissor component of the Da Vinci robot malfunctioned during surgery due to improper insulation, cutting her internal organs and bowel region. Multiple follow-up procedures were required to address the injuries. According to her treating physicians, the plaintiff experienced permanent injuries and damages. In response, Intuitive Surgical argued that the woman was contributorily negligent because she engaged in sexual activity too soon after the hysterectomy procedure, failing to heed the doctors’ warning to wait the recommended six-to-eight weeks.  It also alleged that part of her damages were the result of physical abuse she suffered by her husband. According to her complaint, the plaintiff sought $300 million in damages. During trial, however, the plaintiff sought $30 million.

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