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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Cada año en los Estados Unidos, hay aproximadamente 32,000 personas muertas en accidentes de tráfico. Muchos más sufren daños graves y debilitantes que duran toda la vida. Los accidentes ocurren por muchas razones. Hay tormentas de nieve y hielo en la carretera, y la mayoría de los conductores sin querer manejan hacia otro carril o ven a otro conductor en su punto ciego.

A veces los accidentes son el resultado de que conductores de estan cansados, intoxicados, o distraídos, a menudo por los mensajes de texto o por hablar por teléfono. Cuando esto ocurre, los conductores, pasajeros, peatones, y los propietarios de terreno dañado pueden demandar por negligencia y ser compensados por sus pérdidas. En Illinois, los perjudicados pueden recuperar pérdidas fuera de su bolsillo, al igual que los salarios perdidos y la reducción de ingresos en el futuro, así como las lesiones menos tangibles, como el dolor y el sufrimiento y la angustia emocional.

Algunos accidentes son también el resultado de piezas de automóviles defectuosos. En estos casos, los perjudicados pueden entablar una demanda por compensación, y que ni siquiera tienen que comprobar la negligencia. Si una parte es defectuosa, y la parte era defectuoso cuando salió de la posesión de la automotriz, el demandante tiene derecho a recuperar de las lesiones causadas por el defecto. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Each year in the United States, there are approximately 32,000 people killed in car accidents. Many more suffer severe and debilitating injuries that last a lifetime. Accidents occur for many reasons. There are snow storms and icy road conditions, and most drivers have at one point or another inadvertently drifted into another lane or not seen another driver hiding in his or her blind spot at some point or another.

Sometimes accidents are the result of drivers being tired, intoxicated, or distracted, often by texting or talking on the phone. When this occurs, injured drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and property owners can sue for negligence and be compensated for their losses. In Illinois, injured parties can recover for out-of-pocket losses, like lost wages and reduced future income, as well as less tangible injuries, like pain and suffering and emotional distress.

Some accidents are also the result of defective auto parts. In these cases, injured parties can sue for compensation, and they do not even have to prove negligence. If a part is defective, and the part was defective when it left the automaker’s possession, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for any injuries caused by the defect.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Una demanda presentada por el Procurador General de California alegando que las galletas Nabisco Ginger Snap contienen nueve veces la cantidad de plomo permitido según la ley de California, ha llegado a un acuerdo de $750.000. El Fiscal General de California, junto con 11 fiscales del distrito, interpuso el recurso contra la sociedad matriz Mondelēz International, originalmente parte de Kraft Foods, en el Condado de Orange, el 21 de enero, en busca de daños de acuerdo con Agua Potable Segura de California y el Toxic Enforcement Act, también conocido como Proposición 65.

El plomo plantea graves riesgos para los seres humanos debido a sus propiedades como una neurotoxina. La ingestión de plomo afecta al sistema nervioso central y puede causar lesiones graves como el cáncer, problemas de reproducción, defectos de nacimiento, e incluso la muerte. Cuando los niños consumen plomo, se enfrentan aún más graves síntomas y enfermedades, incluyendo retraso en el desarrollo, lentitud, y vómitos. Los adultos que ingieren plomo durante un período sostenido de tiempo comúnmente presentan síntomas como pérdida de memoria, dolor abdominal, cambios de humor, y la presión arterial alta. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A lawsuit brought by the California Attorney General claiming that Nabisco Ginger Snap cookies contain nine times the amount of lead allowed according to California law has settled for $750,000. The California Attorney General, alongside 11 district attorneys, brought the action against parent company Mondelez International, originally part of Kraft Foods, in the County of Orange on January 21, seeking damages according to California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, also known as Proposition 65.

Lead poses serious risks to humans due to its properties as a neurotoxin. The ingestion of lead affects the central nervous system and can result in severe injuries like cancer, reproductive disabilities, birth defects, and even death. When children consume lead, they face even more serious symptoms and illnesses, including developmental delay, sluggishness, and vomiting. Adults who ingest lead over a sustained period of time commonly exhibit symptoms like memory loss, abdominal pain, mood changes, and high blood pressure.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In many cases, it is difficult to prevail in a lawsuit against the government. This is because federal, state, and local governments are all entitled to a certain level of immunity. Generally speaking, this means that as long as a government employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment when an injury to another person occurs, the government is not liable, even if the employee acted negligently, or without reasonable care. In Illinois, this is called qualified immunity.

While qualified immunity shields governments from having to compensate many injured parties, the immunity enjoyed by governments does not protect against liability in every single case. In some cases, if a government employee’s actions are particularly egregious, the government may be liable for damages. In these situations, an injured party must prove that the government acted with utter indifference or a conscious disregard for the health and safety of others or their property. In Illinois, this may also be referred to as gross negligence, or willful and wanton conduct.

Illinois, like many other states, provides qualified immunity to its government employees so that they may carry out their jobs without fear of being sued. However, as we have seen in cases involving police misconduct, sometimes this immunity backfires, and state employees act as though they are above the law entirely.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Where a person files a claim can have a huge impact on the outcome of the case. Laws differ from state to state, and especially in today’s mobile world, often it is not clear which law applies. In a recent decision, one state had to decide this very issue—and the ruling meant whether the case was able to continue or whether the case was over.

According to the court’s written opinion, two Washington residents were involved in a single-car accident in Idaho. The plaintiff, a passenger in the car, filed a lawsuit against the driver, both of whom lived in Washington. The suit was filed in Washington more than two years after the accident. In Woodward v. Taylor, the issue that state’s supreme court had to decide was which state’s law applied. If Idaho law applied, the claim would have been dismissed because of the state’s two-year statute of limitations. If Washington law applied, the claim was permitted under its three-year statute of limitations. Ultimately, the court held that Washington law applied in this case, allowing the case to move forward.

The court noted that there was a presumption that a state’s laws apply where a claim is filed. In addition, the court found that a difference between statutes of limitations did not constitute a “conflict of law.” The court explained that a conflict of law means that the result of a case would be different under the laws of the two states. However, a difference between statutes of limitations was not considered in determining which state’s law applies. In determining whether a conflict existed, the court found that no conflict of law existed in that case because the relevant laws of negligence, speed limits, and comparative fault in the two states would have resulted in the same outcome. For that reason, the court stated that since there was no conflict of law, the law of their state applied, and the case could continue.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The United States Supreme Court has handed down a key ruling in Campbell-Edwald Co. v. Gomez, holding that a defendant’s offer of settlement to a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit does not render the remaining claims of the class members moot. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff brought a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, requesting damages for unwanted text messages that the defendant delivered to him and the other class members. Prior to seeking class certification, the defendant sent a settlement offer to the plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

After a defendant makes an offer of settlement under FRCP 68, the plaintiff has 10 days to either reject the offer or provide acceptance in writing. If the plaintiff does not respond, the offer is considered rejected. If the plaintiff rejects the settlement, a series of mechanisms kick in that affect trial and the payment of legal fees.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A number of recent food recalls have recently made headlines, putting consumers across the country at risk of suffering serious injuries or contracting a foodborne illness. First, popular pre-washed salad and leafy green provider Fresh Express has recalled 350 cases of its baby spinach products after almond pieces were located in the production supply. Although the almond would not pose any harm to many consumers, it creates a serious threat for those who suffer from an allergy to tree nuts, who can experience life-threatening symptoms or even death if they consume tree nuts.

Currently, Fresh Express has indicated that it is working with its distributors to remove packages of potentially contaminated products, which bear the product code G010A17A, and packages distributed throughout the Eastern and Southeastern states pose the greatest risk to consumers. It has also indicated that it is launching an internal investigation to determine how the piece of almond wound up in the production chain.

Heritage International (USA) has initiated a voluntary recall concerning its Raw Cashew Pieces product, stating that certain products may contain Salmonella. Covering only one lot of production, the packages contain 16 ounces of nuts in a clear plastic bag and are labeled with a barcode including the number 00505154 and a statement reading “BEST BEFORE 07.17.2016TF4.” The company sells this product at Trader Joe’s grocery stores, a national retailer focusing on the natural foods segment.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Ser dueño e invertir en propiedadas puede ser un negocio lucrativo. Algunos inversionistas compran una propiedad, la arreglan, y luego la venden por una gran compensación. Otros compran la propiedad, y la rentan a los residentes o a otros negocios, colectando dinero por el uso continuo de la propiedad. Por último, están los propietarios que viven en o ejecutan un negocio fuera de la propiedad de su propiedad, sin la intención de vender o alquilar la propiedad para el beneficio adicional.

En Illinois, no importa cómo los propietarios usan sus propiedades, deben tener un cuidado razonable para garantizar que la propiedad está libre de condiciones peligrosas. Cómo define la ley sobre un cuidado razonable, en parte, depende de las circunstancias, pero por lo general se requiere que un propietario realice las inspecciones necesarias, haga las reparaciones oportunas a condiciones peligrosas que se señalan o son reportadas, y advertir a los clientes de las condiciones peligrosas que existen en la propiedad.

Cuidado razonable también requiere que los propietarios reparen y adviertan huéspedes de condiciones peligrosas del dueño de la propiedad debe tener en cuenta, incluso si él o ella que pretende no tener conocimiento previo de un riesgo dado. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Owning and investing in property can be a lucrative business. Some investors buy a property, fix it up, and then sell it for a handsome profit. Others buy property and lease it to residents or other businesses, collecting rent for the ongoing use of the property. Finally, there are those property owners who live in or run a business out of the property they own, with no intention of selling or renting the property for additional profit.

In Illinois, no matter how property owners use their properties, they must take reasonable care to ensure that the property is free of dangerous conditions. How the law defines reasonable care in part depends on the circumstances, but typically it requires that a property owner conduct necessary inspections, make timely repairs to dangerous conditions that are noted or reported, and warn guests of dangerous conditions that exist on the property.

Reasonable care also requires that property owners repair and warn guests of dangerous conditions the property owner should be aware of, even if he or she purports not to have prior knowledge of a given hazard.

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