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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

In a recent case, a woman sued a store alleging negligence after she fell in a parking lot. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was shopping with her husband in Hodgkins, Illinois when she fell after stepping on some small rocks in a parking lot. The plaintiff suffered a serious injury as a result of her fall and filed a premises liability lawsuit against the store.

Apparently, the area where she fell was outside the entrance to the defendant’s home improvement store. Near the entrance, there was a planter with a small tree inside, which was filled with decorative river rocks similar to those on which the plaintiff had stepped. The store also sold these rocks. Witnesses testified that the planter needed to be refilled from time to time, and one of the store’s managers had seen children playing in the planter on occasion. The store’s general manager testified that he walked through the store and the parking lot every day to check for safety hazards. In addition, he testified that other employees walked through the parking lot during the day and were required to report any hazards.

In response to the claim against it, the store moved for summary judgment, and a federal court granted the motion. A federal appeals court agreed and determined there was not sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on whether the store’s negligence caused the woman’s fall. The court explained there was no direct or circumstantial evidence indicating the store was responsible for the rocks being in the parking lot, rather than the rocks’ presence being caused by another customer. Although the woman argued an employee’s action could have caused the rocks to be there, it was only speculation. In addition, there was no evidence that the store knew or should have known of the danger of fallen rocks. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any other incidents involving rocks in the parking lot or of fallen rocks or past complaints. As a result, the case was dismissed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Illinois’ Snow and Ice Removal Act prevents plaintiffs from suing for negligent maintenance of premises that causes ice or snow accumulation. In that case, a woman brought a premises liability lawsuit against a condominium association in Carol Stream, Illinois after she fell on an icy sidewalk.

According to the facts outlined in the court’s opinion, the area had a major snowstorm, and the condominium association had cleared the sidewalks. Eleven days later, the plaintiff fell and broke her leg, knee, and hip. The plaintiff alleged that the condominium association negligently designed the area to allow for the proper drainage of the snowmelt, failed to repair the sidewalks, failed to comply with maintenance codes, and failed to prevent the unnatural accumulation of ice.

The trial court determined the claim was barred because residential owners and operators are immune for negligent acts under Illinois’ Snow and Ice Removal Act. However, Illinois’ Supreme Court found the claim was not barred. It explained that the Snow and Ice Removal Act confers immunity from claims caused by icy sidewalks due to negligent snow and ice removal efforts. However, the court explained that the plaintiff’s claim here did not allege negligent snow and ice removal efforts, but instead it alleged negligent design and maintenance of the area. Considering the intent of the Act, the Court found the Act does not preclude claims caused by icy sidewalks resulting from other negligent premises liability theories.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Smoke alarms are intended to protect homeowners, apartment dwellers, and other people from fire-related dangers. We are reminded on a constant basis that we should test our smoke alarms regularly to ensure that they are working and to make sure that we have enough smoke alarms installed throughout the house. This is considered so important that many fire departments often go door-to-door to test smoke alarms for residents.

Along with smoke alarms, it is often recommended to keep a carbon monoxide monitor in the home. In some cases, the smoke detector and the carbon monoxide monitor will be combined into the same device.

Just like any other device intended for the home, however, a smoke alarm and a carbon monoxide detector can put residents at serious risk if they are not manufactured appropriately. According to a recent report from Good Housekeeping, Kidde, a major manufacturer of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors, initiated a major recall of its products after concerns arose that the devices did not function as they were intended. In some situations, the devices may fail to respond appropriately to an emergency situation, due to lack of power.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Nowadays, when a consumer buys a product, they assume that it has gone through sufficient testing and that it will be safe to use for its intended purpose. However, manufacturers can be too quick to put out a product, or a product may show defects over time. Products can be not only defective but also dangerous, and consumers may be entitled to compensation for injuries caused by the defect.

Product liability claims can be based on different theories of recovery, including strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation. Strict liability claims require a showing that a product was unreasonably dangerous, that the defect was present when it left the manufacturer’s control, and that it caused the plaintiff’s injuries. These claims generally arise either as manufacturing defects, design defects, or marketing defects. In some cases, a defect can be difficult to prove. In others, however, the manufacturer will actually recall the product due to safety concerns.

Product Recalls

There are different types of recalls that can occur when a product is defective. Sometimes recalls are mandatory, which occur when an agency or court requires the manufacturer to issue a recall. Recalls can also be voluntary and occur when the manufacturer decides to issue a recall on its own—although even voluntary recalls can be influenced by the federal agencies.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Multiple products have recently caught media attention after their respective manufacturers announced that they contain tainted powdered milk. Publix Super Markets recalled some of its pancake and waffle mixes, due to the presence of contaminated powdered milk. The grocery store chain also encouraged consumers to check their cupboards and immediately return any products that may contain the contaminated powdered milk. The contaminated mixes were distributed at Publix locations in multiple states, including South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

The second recall also involved pancake and waffle mix. According to the FDA, the pancake and waffle mix varieties contain powdered milk that is contaminated with salmonella. The contamination happened at a manufacturing facility where powdered milk intended for use in various food products is manufactured. The Stonewall Kitchen pancake and waffle mixes affected by the contamination include three flavors:  toasted coconut, orange cranberry, and cinnamon apple. They were sold at locations across the United States through direct retail sales through retailers like Macy’s, catalog orders, and wholesale.

According to Stonewall Kitchen, pathogenic bacteria were not found in the powdered products, but the manufacturer initiated a recall out of an abundance of caution. Consumers should immediately return any affected product and refrain from consuming it. Although the notice announcing the recall for the Stonewall Kitchen products containing Salmonella-contaminated milk did not specific the milk supplier involved, Publix indicated that the two recalls were related.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Medical device manufacturers make products that are sold all around the world. Although most of the lawsuits we read about regarding medical devices involve American plaintiffs, there are some instances in which foreign individuals sue U.S. manufacturers abroad for damages they sustained as a result of the defendant’s products. Recently, two French women filed a lawsuit against Bayer, alleging that they sustained damages as a result of using the company’s Essure contraceptive implant device.

The Essure device is comprised of a small metal coil that a doctor inserts in the fallopian tubes by using a catheter. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), during the 13 years since the Essure device was approved, the FDA has received over 5,000 complaints regarding the device. These complaints describe a wide variety of side effects, including breakages of the device, severe pain, and menstrual irregularities. Other complications include intra-abdominal or pelvic migration of the device, irregular bleeding, and complications requiring the women to undergo surgical procedures to have the device removed. There were also some reports indicating that the patient experienced an unintended pregnancy, depression, uterine perforation, and dizziness. Sources indicate that some 120,000 women in France obtained the device during the last 14 years.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs are requesting an expert to determine the relationship between the damages that they are experiencing and the device. In response to the women’s lawsuit, the French Health ministry stated that the problems that the women experienced may have been a result of the methods that the physicians used to insert the device rather than an issue with the device itself. Still, this could result from the manufacturer’s failure to provide appropriate instructions on how to implant the device, or it could be the result of malpractice on the physicians’ part.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning a ban on a chemical that is commonly used in dry cleaning services, due to its serious impact on liver health and neurological function. The chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE), has been associated with serious risks to consumers and workers. A 2014 assessment concluded that the chemical can lead to a wide array of health effects, including cancer, the development of neurotoxicological effects, and liver toxicity.

TCE is a chemical that is mostly used as a solvent. It has a pleasant, sweet smell, although it can be inhaled without any odor associated with it. The vapors can also be absorbed through skin contact. In most cases, TCE is used in commercial or manufacturing facilities. It is sold through industrial supply channels as a degreaser or refrigerant chemical.

The EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacture of the chemical, as well as its use in processing plants and distribution centers that use TCE in aerosol degreasing applications or spot use cleaning applications in dry cleaning facilities. The federal agency is also proposing a requirement that would force manufacturers, processors, and distribution centers to provide notice to retailers and other businesses and individuals in their supply chains of the agency’s new prohibitions. Because of its highly hazardous nature, the EPA plans to evaluate the potential health consequences associated with TCE in its other uses and applications.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By
  • Earlier this month, a federal jury in Dallas returned a verdict against DePuy Orthopedics, the manufacturer of the Pinnacle hip replacement device, awarding the six plaintiffs in the lawsuit more than $1 billion in damages. The Pinnacle hip implant device is a metal-on-metal device that has been linked to serious injuries in patients who received the implant. Among the many injuries reported following implantation, metallosis or metal fragments in the blood stream are among the most common. Other injuries reported include severe pain, instability, and complications requiring revision surgeries.

According to the jury in the Dallas case, DePuy’s metal-on-metal device was designed in a defective manner, and the company failed to provide appropriate warnings to patients regarding the risks that the device poses. One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs informed news sources that the verdict was decided with $32 million for compensatory damages and the remainder reflecting punitive damages. Compensatory damages are damages reflecting direct costs and monetary expenses that the plaintiffs incurred as a result of the defendant’s conduct, including medical bills. Punitive damages are an entirely separate category of damages that are purely intended to punish a defendant’s willful, reckless, and wanton conduct while discouraging similarly situated parties from acting in a similar manner.

The plaintiffs were comprised of six individuals from California who were implanted with the Pinnacle device. They reported a number of serious injuries associated with their devices, including bone erosion and tissue death. According to their complaint. the plaintiffs were informed that the metal-on-metal device was a longer-lasting solution than traditional ceramic hip implants or plastic devices. Sources have also revealed that prior to the trial, DePuy rejected a $1.8 million settlement offer by the plaintiffs.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Following the court rules may seem like a basic concept, but failing to follow them can have a devastating impact in a case. A recent case demonstrates how an attorney’s oversight almost resulted in the permanent dismissal of a case.

A woman sued the Greyhound bus company after she was injured on a Greyhound bus. The woman claimed the driver was driving too fast, and as a result, the driver hit two other cars and crashed into a tree. Greyhound made a motion to move the case to another county because the accident occurred in that county, and most of the defendants were domiciled there. The court granted the motion and agreed to have the case moved. The court also ordered the woman to pay the transfer fees for moving the case.

Greyhound sent a notice to the woman, asking to have the transfer fees paid, but the woman did not respond. The court required the transfer fees to be paid within 30 days, or the case could be dismissed. After the woman failed to pay the transfer fees within 30 days, Greyhound moved to dismiss the case. The court granted the motion, based on the woman’s failure to pay the fees.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a passenger sued after she was injured in a car accident. A man had bought his fiancée a van for her birthday. On her birthday, the couple was drinking with some friends, and the man gathered the friends in the van. He then drove the van and crashed it, causing one of the passengers serious injuries. The passenger received compensation for her injuries from the man’s insurance, but she said the amount she received did not cover her injuries and made an additional claim for underinsured motorist benefits. Since the man’s coverage did not cover her expenses, she claimed he was “underinsured,” so she should receive underinsured motorist benefits from her insurance policy and from the driver’s fiancée’s policy.

The insurance company denied the claim at first. The passenger then sued the insurance company, claiming the company unreasonably denied her claim or delayed in paying her. The insurance company eventually paid her additional compensation. However, the passenger still claimed the insurance company unreasonably denied or delayed payment—essentially stating that the company acted in bad faith in doing so.

A federal trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, finding it did not unreasonably deny or delay payment. But the passenger appealed, and a federal appeals court reversed the decision, deciding a reasonable jury could find the insurance company failed to reasonably investigate her claim.

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