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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Johnson & Johnson was named as a defendant in a recently filed product liability lawsuit involving its silicone breast implant product. The action, which was filed in state court in California, alleges that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of receiving the company’s silicone breast implants. The plaintiff’s alleged injuries include severe muscle pain, nausea, and more.

In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the use of silicone in breast implants. The agency prohibited their use based on research suggesting that they cause health problems like rheumatoid arthritis. The primary manufacturer of silicone implants faced so many lawsuits at the time that it eventually filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The FDA ultimately required the company to pay a total of $3.2 billion in damages to implant recipients. In 2006, the agency lifted this ban, and Johnson & Johnson became the first company to offer a silicone-based implant product in the years that followed.

The lawsuit is seeking damages based on Johnson & Johnson’s alleged failure to provide sufficient warnings to the plaintiff about the potential side effects and safety of the implants. The plaintiff contended that the silicone implants are prone to leaking, which can cause a host of physical injuries and ailments.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a federal appeals court found in favor of an Illinois man who alleged his ladder was defectively designed. The man fell off his ladder while he was replacing the screws on his gutter and suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. He later suffered from seizures, dementia, and quadriplegia.

After the accident, he brought a lawsuit against the ladder’s manufacturer, claiming that the ladder was defectively designed and that the defective design had caused the ladder to collapse. He argued the company did not design the ladder to accommodate the weight of people at or near 200 pounds. He weighed 224 pounds shortly before the accident.

The case went to trial, and the jury found in the man’s favor. The jury awarded him over $11 million in damages. Afterwards, the manufacturer argued it was entitled to a new trial. It contended that the man did not present sufficient evidence that the manufacturer had defectively designed the ladder.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a personal injury claim, a plaintiff has to prove not just liability but the extent of the damages. This means the plaintiff may need to establish the nature of the injuries, the expected duration of the injuries, how the injuries may have aggravated a pre-existing condition, disfigurement, disability, pain and suffering, emotional distress, necessary medical expenses, lost wages, care-taking expenses, and any shortened life expectancy.

Jury Awards $15 Million in Damages to Student After Crash

A tragic car accident in 2015 resulted in the death of five Georgia nursing students. A jury recently awarded the lone survivor $15 million. According to the a news report, a truck driver had been driving 70 miles per hour down a highway and failed to slow down or stop for traffic, causing him to crash into several cars. The truck driver’s truck drove over the top of a Toyota Corolla and crashed into a Ford Escape that was carrying the students. The students had been on their way to their last day of clinical rotations at a nearby hospital. The survivor brought a lawsuit against the truck driver’s trucking company.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant device, has asked a federal judge to issue an order granting new trials after juries returned a total of $1 billion in judgments to six total plaintiffs. Each of these plaintiffs sued the medical device maker, alleging that the Pinnacle hip implant device failed to include proper warnings about its potential side effects and that it was designed in an unreasonably defective manner. These plaintiffs alleged specifically that the metal-on-metal aspect of the device resulted in dangerous side effects, including metallosis, a condition in which metal particles escape into the bloodstream.

In December 2016, a jury in Dallas concluded that the metal-on-metal hip implant devices were designed in a defective manner and failed to include warnings about their dangers. The Dallas jury awarded the six plaintiffs $32 million in compensatory damages and over $1 billion in punitive damages. Compensatory damages are a type of damages designed to compensate a plaintiff for expenses associated with his or her injuries that stem from the accident. Common examples include medical expenses and lost wages.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, are a separate category of damages that are designed to punish a defendant for engaging in particularly egregious, wanton, and willful conduct while also serving to deter other similarly situated individuals from engaging in similarly reprehensible behavior.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, the plaintiff brought a personal injury claim against another driver and his company after he was injured in a car accident. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The jury awarded him $84,283 in economic damages and $40,000 in noneconomic damages.

The defendants argued the award should be reduced, since the plaintiff paid only $1,941 toward his medical expenses, and his insurance had paid the rest. Initially, the trial court agreed and reduced the award to $24,299. It took the original economic damages award and reduced it by the cost to secure the collateral source benefits of approximately $58,000, resulting in the award of $24,299.

However, the state’s supreme court reversed the case on appeal and held the plaintiff’s award should not have been reduced. The court explained that normally, a state statute allowed an award to be reduced if the expenses were paid by another source. But the court further explained that this rule did not apply if the other payer was entitled to reimbursement from the plaintiff. Since in this case, the insurance company had a right to be reimbursed, even if only for a portion of the amount, the award should not have been reduced.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Raw milk is becoming an increasingly popular choice as an alternative to traditional dairy products that have undergone pasteurization. For all of the benefits purportedly associated with consuming raw milk, there are also substantial health risks. In the United Kingdom, for example, an outbreak that led to six confirmed cases of Campylobacter was linked to a raw milk vending machine. The outbreak started in roughly mid-December 2016 and has now resulted in at least 56 cases.

In general, Campylobacter causes over 280,000 instances of food poisoning each year in the United Kingdom, with nearly 75,000 of those cases directly tied to food-related sources. It is also a serious threat to consumers in the United States. Raw milk products can contain a variety of contaminants that can be harmful if consumed. Some of the dangers associated with raw milk from cows, goats, sheep, and other livestock include Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. These illnesses can be severe, often requiring hospitalization and leading to fatalities on occasion. Although the sale of raw milk remains unlawful in many areas, there are some localities that have enacted rules allowing the sale of raw milk in limited situations. For example, many of these laws allow consumers to purchase raw milk products if the consumer travels to the farm where the raw milk is sourced and purchases the raw milk directly from the farm.

If you have suffered injuries as a result of consuming a contaminated food product, you can bring a personal injury claim against the individuals or companies that may be responsible. When it comes to food contamination, there are many parties involved in the production process, including farmers, harvesters, packers, processors, distributors, packaging plants, chefs or cooks, and restaurant staff. According to the negligence doctrine, each of these individuals has a duty to use reasonable care and skill when handling, processing, or serving food. This standard encompasses any applicable health and safety regulations. If the plaintiff can show that the defendant failed to follow an applicable statute or regulation in relation to the food product, the plaintiff will be allowed to assert a rebuttable presumption that the defendant acted negligently.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case arising out of allegedly negligent medical care provided by the defendants, the court dismissed three wrongful death claims that were filed during the pendency of another wrongful death claim. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had filed a medical malpractice claim against her father’s doctor in one lawsuit, against another doctor in a second lawsuit, and against a medical center in third and fourth lawsuits. All of the claims were based on the same event:  the death of her father.

The court looked at an older case and explained that when two lawsuits involve the same parties and the same wrongful death claim, the court that first acquires jurisdiction retains jurisdiction over the case, and subsequent lawsuits are prohibited. The court explained that the first state court that has jurisdiction over a wrongful death claim then has exclusive jurisdiction over the case, and other subsequently filed claims should be dismissed. Thus, as long as a wrongful death claim is pending, other subsequently filed claims have “no effect.”

In this case, the plaintiff first filed a wrongful death claim for the alleged wrongful death of her father. After that claim was filed, she then filed three more wrongful death claims involving the same events. The court looked at the previously decided line of cases and determined that the subsequently filed cases were properly dismissed. The court explained the rule applied both in cases with multiple plaintiffs and in cases with multiple defendants. As a result, the subsequent cases were dismissed, and the only option the woman had to bring claims against the other defendants was try to amend her original complaint.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Riding on public transportation is part of one’s daily life, particularly for people who live in cities. But buses, trains, and other vehicles have to be operated with care, since the people who depend on public transportation are forced to put their lives in the hands of these transportation operators. Often, operators manage vehicles negligently or recklessly, putting passengers and others at risk.

Negligence Lawsuits Arising from Auto Accidents

Most transportation collisions are the result of negligent rather than intentional conduct. In a claim against another party for negligence in Illinois, a plaintiff has to prove a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of the duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Some courts in Illinois have defined negligence as “the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do or doing something which a reasonably careful person would not do.”

The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish each element in a negligence lawsuit, generally by presenting evidence and expert testimony. This can be direct evidence, such as eye-witness testimony, or circumstantial evidence, such as skid marks in a car accident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a plaintiff brought a claim against a city after he was hit by another driver. The man was hit after a woman failed to stop at a stop sign and crashed into his car. The man filed a lawsuit against the woman for negligence, alleging she was negligent in failing to stop. He also alleged the city was negligent for failing to make sure the stop sign was visible.

The woman claimed she did not see the stop sign because it was blocked by a tree, and a police officer who was at the scene also found the stop sign was significantly obstructed. After the man brought the claim, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the city from the case, finding the city had immunity. The man appealed the decision.

That state’s supreme court reversed the decision and found the city did not have immunity. The man argued the city was liable under a state statute as a local government entity that negligently failed to keep public roads in repair or negligently failed to remove obstructions from public roads. The statute defined a “public road” as a public road, highway, street, avenue, alley, or bridge, but it generally did not include a shoulder, right-of-way, or traffic control device, unless the traffic control device was mandated by the “Ohio manual of uniform traffic control devices.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In civil claims, when a jury finds in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is generally awarded damages to compensate for the injuries or damages incurred. Compensatory damages are often awarded to compensate the plaintiff for medical expenses, lost wages, mental distress, and other losses.

Punitive damages can also be awarded to plaintiffs in certain cases. In contrast to compensatory damages that are meant to compensate the plaintiff, punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant for bad behavior and to deter others from engaging in such behavior.

Illinois law permits punitive damages awards if the defendant’s behavior demonstrated “an evil motive” or a “reckless indifference to the rights of others.” In Illinois, punitive damages are awarded for three reasons:  to deter the defendant from engaging in such behavior, to deter others from engaging in similar behavior, and to punish the defendant. In state law claims, punitive damages can be as much as three times the economic damages award. In other states and jurisdictions, the amount of allowable punitive damages varies. In any case, a punitive damages award can greatly increase the compensation a plaintiff receives, when it is available.

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