Articles Posted in Product Liability

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 →

There have been a surge of shootings that may be the result of a defect in Sig Sauer P320. These incidents have happened unexpectedly and caused pain and devastation. For instance, a military sergeant was talking to his supervisor, when another soldier tried to get past him. The sergeant and soldier’s gun holsters clanked against each other, and the gun went off—the sergeant’s own gun, a Sig Sauer’s P320, had fired without him pulling a trigger, and a bullet hit him in the ankle, causing serious injuries that required him to undergo six months of rehabilitation and surgery. A number of lawsuits have been filed against Sig Sauer for what plaintiffs believe is a design or manufacturing flaw in which people can be shot without anyone pulling the trigger. If you were injured by a Sig Sauer gun, please call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved, around the country.

Call Experienced Lawyers at Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The Sig Sauer P320 is one of the country’s most popular pistols. More than 2.5 million guns have been sold and the manufacturer promises a commitment to safety without compromise. However, it has also been the subject of numerous lawsuits concerning alleged design and manufacturing defects that make it more susceptible to accidentally going off and injuring people, often the owners themselves.

There have 9 separate incidents at United States military bases between September 2020-June 2023. Records that have been obtained indicate that guns alleged fired unintentionally at various United States military bases across the world. Even so, the manufacturer claims this gun isn’t capable of firing without a trigger pull. Likewise the Army denies that the guns had defects, claiming that they were comprehensively tested and worked fine. In fact, the Army adopted this gun as a standard issue sidearm for soldiers, in 2017. Almost 500,000 continue to be in service without restrictions and worn on the hips of military servicemembers.

Continue reading →

The average person who menstruates spends around five years of their lifespan using around 11,000 menstrual products, including tampons. A new study led by Jenni A. Shearston a postdoctoral scholar from UC Berkeley found that tampons from several brands that millions use can be contaminated with the toxic metals lead, cadmium and arsenic. This finding is alarming because the skin of the vagina has the ability to absorb chemicals better than skin in other locations on the body. Up to 80% of people who menstruate use tampons for hours on end. If you believe you were harmed by contaminated tampons, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group.

Discuss a Claim With Moll Law Group

Shearston believes that theirs is the first paper to look at how much metal is in tampons. Metal can increase risks of cancer, diabetes, infertility, and dementia. The brain, kidneys, liver, and related systems can be severely damaged. Plus, fetal development can be harmed. What is disturbing in this case is that there were concentrations of lead, arsenic, and all other metals tested for in the tampons.

Thirty tampons from 14 brands were tested for the presence and level of 16 metals. These metals were zinc, vanadium, strontium, selenium, lead, nickel, mercury, manganese, iron, copper, chromium, cobalt, cadmium, calcium, barium, and arsenic. The amounts of metals found were different based on whether products were purchased in the United States or Europe and the U.K, and based on whether the tampon was organic or nonorganic. There was no category of tampon—including organic tampons—that consistently showed lower concentrations of most metals. The presence of these metals can place women at higher risk for exposure because they use menstrual products.

Continue reading →

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a warning that airborne beach umbrellas can kill explaining that incidents with these umbrellas have become “all too common.” Wind gusts have pulled up beach umbrellas on crowded beaches and sent them hurtling towards people. The results have been deaths and serious injuries like lacerations and impalements. There is now a voluntary safety standard to assist manufacturers in making sure that the danger is minimized. If your loved one was killed or you were injured by a beach umbrella that went flying, you may be able to recover compensation. The seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group can go over your legal options.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Beach Umbrella Claim

The new voluntary safety standard ASTM F3681-24 requires that beach umbrellas and their anchor systems, along with beach umbrellas that are used with complaint anchors need to offer a resisting force of at least 75 pounds. Alternatively, they need to stay secure in wind speeds of up to 30 miles per hour, when the compliant anchor is secured in the sand.

Its expected that products compliant with this safety standard will be available soon. Consumers should look at the labels of anchors, which will state whether it meets the new safety standard by indicating that it “MEETS ASTM F3681 FOR WIND SPEEDS UP TO 30 MPH.” This will also set forth the maximum canopy size for an umbrella used with the anchor.

Continue reading →

On May 30, 2024, the manufacturer Black & Decker recalled its CRAFTSMAN® V20 Cordless Tillers/Cultivators because the instructions for its assembly could result in consumers incorrectly putting in the bottom part of the tiller upside-down. This can cause tines to rotate towards the person operating the tiller and present the risk of cuts. Around 44,400 units were recalled. If you were cut or dealt with lacerations from a tiller/cultivator, you should call the Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The tillers/cultivators in question were made in China and sold at Ace Hardware, Lowe’s, Amazon.com, Blain’s Farm and Fleet, and some Army & Air Force Exchanges between October ’22 – April 2024. The purchase price was $129-179. No injuries have been reported in connection with the recalled product thus far. The company has received a single report of incorrect attachment of the lower part of a cordless tiller/cultivator. Consumers have been asked to stop using these products and call Craftsman at (855) 237-6848 between 8 a.m. and 6.pm on weekdays or visit the Craftsman recall page. The company will provide new assembly instructions. The company is also contacting those it knows bought the product to give them instructions. This recall is similar to an earlier recall in May of Walk-Behind Leaf Blowers and Vacuums and Tow-Behind Leaf Vacuums, which also posed laceration risks.

If you’ve already been injured, you may want recourse, not simply new assembly instructions. It’s important to talk to our experienced product liability lawyers about your legal options. When you’ve been injured by a defective product, it may be appropriate to pursue damages against the manufacturer by filing a product liability lawsuit. These lawsuits are pursued when a product is defective in terms of its manufacturing, marketing, or design. In this case, since the assembly instructions were flawed, it’s possible that the court could find a marketing defect. Often defects must be proven with the assistance of expert witnesses.

Continue reading →

Recently around 1.6 million Black+Decker garment steamers were recalled by Empower Brands in a major expansion of an earlier recall of 518,500 units because of the risk of burns. Now all Black+Decker Model HGS011 Easy Garment Steamers have been recalled, including those that had been repaired as part of the earlier recall. You can identify the affect garment steamers because they have BLACK+DECKER printed at the base of the steamer, which is 11 by 6 inches. Each steamer has a model number printed on the bottom as well as on the sides of its package, and you should check to see whether you have an affected model. The affected models are HGS011, HGS011F, HGS011S, HGS011T. Packages with these UPC codes, printed on the package, are affected: 0 50875 82840 7, 0 50875 82839 1, 0 50875 82838 4, and 0 50875 00272 2. If you were burned by a Black+Decker garment steamer or another steamer, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in lawsuits with which we’ve been involved.

Consult Moll Law Group About Your Black+Decker Burn Claim

People have reported they were burned by the affected steamers. However, people also reported that they suffered injuries due to steamers that had previously been recalled in 2022 and repaired with a replacement upper assembly. Specifically, there have been 317 reports of hot water coming out of the recalled steamers. Of those, 82 people have reported getting burned by the hot water, and of those that were burned, 7 people suffered second-degree burns. 94 of the reports, including of 19 burn injuries, involved units that had supposedly been repaired in the 2022 recall or in units that had an updated design.

The company has asked consumers to stop using the recalled steamers and to contact Empower Brands to obtain a full refund. However, if you were injured by the steamer, you may need further recourse and you may be wondering what to do. When a consumer is injured by a product made dangerous due to a manufacturing, design, or marketing defect, he or she can bring a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. The company could be held liable for injuries caused by the defective product under theories of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, breach of contract, statutory violations, or fraud, depending on the state laws and the circumstances. Often, strict liability provides the most straightforward theory of liability because it requires attorneys to prove only: (1) the product was defective, (2) the defects caused your injuries, and (3) the injuries resulted in damages.

Continue reading →