Articles Posted in Product Liability

Firepits that function by burning liquid fuels like pooled alcohol can be extremely dangerous. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has asked consumers not to buy or use these fire pits, which are sold as fire pots, tabletop fire pits, miniature fireplaces and portable fires that can be used indoors. The CPSC has also asked sellers to stop selling them. They released a flame jetting safety video. Since 2019, these pits have been connected to two deaths and a minimum of 60 injuries. If you were injured or a loved one was killed as a result of burns from a firepit, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability attorneys of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Consult an Experienced Chicago-Based Product Liability Attorney

The CPSC previously alerted consumers that they should not use FLIKRFIRE Tabletop Fireplaces and recalled Colsen-branded tabletop fire pits. With this latest warning, they’re focused on fire pits that necessitate the pouring of rubbing alcohol or another liquid fuel into an open container and the igniting of that pooled liquid. The warning specifies that this method violates the voluntary safety standard ASTM F3363-19. This standard is intended to stop pool fires where flames burn on the surface of a flammable liquid and flame jetting, which happens when flames arise in containers of liquid fuel. Rubbing alcohol, ethanol, bioethanol and similar liquids have temperatures that exceed 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. They can result in 3^rd degree burns in under a second.

When of a pool of alcohol is ignited in an open container of a fire pit, the fire can quickly get out of control. Large hot flames, greater than those expected, may go beyond the bounds of the fire pit. With flame jetting, a person who refills the alcohol or other liquid while the flame is present, can be at risk of serious burns, as well, from an explosion that propels the flames and burning hot liquid to those in the vicinity.

Continue reading →

Recently, manufacturer Home4U, which does business as Medical King and the United States Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalled around 222,000 adult portable bedrails because the product carries the threat of serious entrapment and asphyxia. People using the bedrails can get trapped between the bed and the rail or may find themselves between the mattress and the rail. One man has died in connection with the affected bedrails. If you were injured or a loved one suffered entrapment or were asphyxiated as a result of one of the Medical King bedrails, call the experienced Chicago-based attorneys of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits around the country with which we’ve been involved. We represent clients nationwide.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Bed Rail Claim

Between January 2020-March 2024, around 222,000 bed rails made by Medical King were sold for $40 at medicalkingusa.com, Amazon.com, Target Plus, Walmart.com, eBay, and Kohls.com were recalled. Made in China, the bedrails that have been recalled are the Medical King Bed Assist Rail Without Legs (model number 7037) and Medical King’s Bed Assist Rail with Adjustable Heights (model numbers 7007 and 7057). The one with no legs has a silver metal tube construction, a black fabric pouch, and a black foam rubber grip handle. The one with adjustable heights is composed of white or black metal tubing and has a black foam rubber grip handle, plus fabric pouch.

As a result of a recalled Medical King bed rail (the Bed Assist Rail with Adjustable Heights, model number 7007), a 66-year-old was entrapped by the bed rail against a mattress and died.   If you or a loved one is using a recalled bed rail, it is imperative to stop using it. You can get a free repair kit or replacement bed rail by contacting the manufacturer.

Continue reading →

Recently, a second study of dozens of acne creams and cleansers, including Clearasil and Proactiv, made with benzoyl peroxide, found that they contain high levels of the carcinogen benzene. An earlier study with the same finding had been criticized for its methodology; however the second study confirming those findings sounds an alarm that federal agencies should pay attention to. Senator Richard Blumenthal has called on the FDA to investigate the carcinogen levels in acne treatments. If you were harmed or believe that you developed cancer due to an acne cream, facewash, or cleanser you should call the seasoned Chicago-based dangerous drug attorneys of Moll Law Group. We represent clients nationwide, and billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Acne Cream or Cleanser Lawsuit

A first study of the acne creams and facewashes by Valisure found that high levels of benzene could form in benzoyl peroxide products, but the study had been criticized for testing products that were maintained at the high temperature of 122 degrees Fahrenheit. In March, Valisure had petitioned the FDA to recall those acne creams and cleansers that had large quantities of benzene. The FDA had said it wanted to verify the lab’s claims, and in the summer, a spokesperson stated that the agency was still researching the issue.

In the second study, more than 100 benzoyl peroxide acne creams, face washes and other products were tested. The tested products were those that are available at major stores in six states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas. Unlike with the earlier study, these products were kept at room temperature. Around one-third of these products contained large quantities of benzene, which is linked to developing cancer. For instance, researchers found that Proactiv included 18 times the amount of benzene that’s allowed in U.S. drugs. And researchers found that a face wash made by CVS had 13 times the levels of the carcinogen that the FDA believes is safe.

Continue reading →

Recently, a jury awarded $78 million to a plaintiff who had sued Monsanto arguing that the company’s weed killer, Roundup, was a reason he suffered blood cancer. This was one of a series of verdicts in Roundup litigation. The plaintiff who’d been diagnosed was a 51-year old man who’d used Roundup for around 30 years starting in 1992. In 2020, he’d been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and his lawsuit claimed was due to chemical exposures, and he and his wife sued both Monsanto and parent company Bayer. In the course of the trial, his attorney argued that the company had concealed the potential dangers of Roundup and manipulated evidence for 50 years. The defense attorney argued that treatment for the plaintiff was brief and his cancer was in remission. If you developed cancer and believe it’s due to exposure to Roundup, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group. We represent plaintiffs around the country.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Claims

There are thousands of lawsuits unfolding across the country that are brought by plaintiffs who argue Monsanto’s negligence in failing to provide adequate warnings about Roundup caused their cancer. However juries have reached different verdicts depending on the facts of specific cases. In the past, two juries awarded $175 million and $3.5 million to plaintiffs in this litigation.

Both compensatory and punitive damages have been sought in multiple cases. The latter are damages awarded to punish a defendant and deter future misconduct. Generally, it’s expected to be proportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay, and the plaintiff’s attorney in the recent case that went to verdict requested that jurors return a verdict in “Monsanto dollars.” While $3 million were awarded in compensatory damages, the jury recognized that the punitive and deterrent effects of punitive damages would not be accomplished unless the damages award were matched to Monsanto’s size and awarded $75 million in punitives.

Continue reading →

Even at low levels, benzene is a carcinogen and can increase the risk for blood tissue cancers like lymphoma, myeloma, and leukemia. Benzene can’t exist at any safe level in sunscreen, according to experts. Recently, Johnson & Johnson recalled certain Neutrogena and Aveeno products, because it was found that they contained benzene. This is not the first question about benzene in Johnson & Johnson sunscreens; in 2021, the FDA wrote an internal report, a Health Hazard Evaluation, that said that there was danger even when sunscreen contained only low levels of benzene. At that time, Johnson & Johnson sunscreens were among those that contained the carcinogen, and tests had detected levels of benzene that were 5 to 12 times above the recommended limits that two independent organizations had set. If you have been diagnosed with cancer and you used the sunscreens listed below, you may have grounds to bring a product liability lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. Call the attorneys of Moll Law Group to discuss whether your claim is viable.

Consult Moll Law Group About Benzene in Sunscreen

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is voluntarily recalling all lots of five of its products after internal testing found low levels of benzene in product samples. The latest Johnson & Johnson sunscreens to be implicated in benzene sunscreen lawsuits are aerosol Aveeno and Neutrogena products. These include Aveeno Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen, Neutrogena Beach Defense aerosol sunscreen, Neutrogena Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen, Neutrogena Invisible Daily defense aerosol sunscreen, and Neutrogena Ultra Sheer^® aerosol sunscreen. Consumers have been told to stop using these products.

Benzene is a known human carcinogen, a material that can potentially trigger cancer based on how much it’s been used and the consumer’s exposure levels. The substance is everywhere in the environment and can be absorbed via a person’s skin, as well as orally. Benzene isn’t an ingredient in the Johnson & Johnson sunscreens but has been detected in the products, nonetheless. Johnson & Johnson has stated that daily exposure in the specified aerosol sunscreen products in the low levels found in their testing wouldn’t be expected to result in cancer; for their purposes, the lots have been recalled in order to be cautious.

Continue reading →