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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

We live in a digital age, in which new technological inventions seem to be announced every single day. One of the most discussed technological inventions of 2016 and something that is sure to stay in the spotlight during 2017 is driverless cars. These machines offer consumers the convenience of a personal vehicle with the added bonus of not needing to pilot the car, leaving passengers free to read, catch up on work, or engage in other activities.

Recently, however, a federal class action lawsuit alleges that one of Tesla’s self-driving vehicles has logged 62 times more “sudden unintended acceleration” events than the average nationwide. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit alleges that his Tesla vehicle, a Model X SUV, crashed through a wall in his garage as a result of one of these unintended acceleration events.

Tesla considers itself a software company, and its founder, Elon Musk, has described its vehicles as “computers on wheels.” The driverless function of the vehicle is intended to make all the decisions for the driver. Computer engineers who design the software are responsible for anticipating the many different scenarios that a vehicle may encounter and to program the computer to make the appropriate decisions necessary to navigate each scenario safely. In December 2015, Musk reported that the computer software was so advanced that the vehicle could not only track the car in front of it but also the two vehicles in front of it. He also stated that the vehicle could see through rain, snow, dust, and fog. He projected that by 2017, all Tesla vehicles will have full self-driving abilities.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a California appellate court issued an opinion in a pedestrian accident case, reversing a lower court decision that had declined to apply governmental design immunity. In the case, Gonzales v. City of Atwater, the appellate court found that all three elements of governmental design immunity were met by the defendant, the city that had designed and constructed the intersection where the accident giving rise to the case had occurred.

Government Immunity in General

In all 50 states, government immunity exists in some circumstances to limit a government’s exposure to liability after accidents. The motivating thought behind government immunity is to prevent a government from getting bogged down in defending lawsuits related to the normal functions that a government must carry out on a routine basis. Government immunity does not apply in every situation in which a government employee or entity causes an injury. However, governmental immunity is a hurdle that most personal injury plaintiffs must face when naming a state, local, or federal government as a defendant. A recent case illustrates this concept.

Gonzales v. City of Atwater:  The Facts

Gonzales was killed while crossing the street in an intersection in Atwater, California. Gonzales’ loved ones filed a lawsuit against both the driver of the vehicle that struck him and the City of Atwater. After a jury trial, it was determined that the driver who struck Gonzales was not at fault for the accident, but the City of Atwater was liable. The jury returned a verdict of $3.2 million.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A federal judge in Texas recently entered an order reducing a jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson regarding its DePuy metal-on-metal hip implant device. Marketed under the brand name Pinnacle, thousands of plaintiffs have sued DePuy, alleging that the metal-on-metal hip implant was defective, was unreasonably dangerous, and failed to include proper warnings about the risks associated with the device.

One of the most common injuries associated with metal-on-metal hip implants is metallosis, which is a type of metal poisoning. When the metal components of the hip implant device rub together, microscopic fragments of metal are released into the blood and surrounding tissues. Metallosis causes serious complications, including damage to the bone, tissue, and nervous systems. In some cases, the symptoms associated with the condition do not manifest for several months. These symptoms include skin rashes, infection, nerve pain, cognitive impairment, heart problems, depression, anxiety, and visual impairment that can lead to blindness. Other complications associated with the Pinnacle device include chronic pain, popping and clicking, and complications requiring a revision or removal surgery.

In December 2015, a jury in Dallas returned a verdict concluding that DePuy designed the Pinnacle device in an unreasonably dangerous manner and failed to warn patients. It awarded the plaintiffs in the lawsuit $32 million in compensatory damages and over $1 billion in punitive damages. Punitive damages are a separate category of compensation that is designed to punish a defendant for reckless, malicious, and wanton conduct. It is also intended to deter similarly situated individuals from engaging in comparable behavior.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Open-heart surgery is a very serious procedure that poses substantial risks on its own. Recently, a number of hospitals in Illinois and around the nation have warned patients who underwent open-heart surgery that they could be at risk for contracting a dangerous infection due to contaminated medical equipment. Patients who may have been exposed to the infected equipment are being sent letters to warn them and to urge them to undergo tests immediately.

The contaminated device in question is a heater-cooler unit that surgeons use to keep a patient stable while undergoing open-heart surgery. According to recent estimates, roughly 60 percent of open-heart bypass surgeries in the United States use the device in question.

According to the CDC, the contamination could have occurred at the time the device was manufactured. Regarding the potential outbreak, a spokesperson for the FDA said that the infections are highly invasive and could be life-threatening for many patients, posing a risk of serious illness and even death in some cases.

Continue reading →

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 →

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