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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Sometimes it is easy to overlook the fact that there are hundreds of appliances and products in our daily lives that pose latent risks to our health and safety. Something as simple and common as a washing machine can lead to serious injuries if is not manufactured with reasonable safety and diligence. Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a confirmation that there are serious risks associated with Samsung’s top-loading washing machines.

According to the public watchdog agency, machines that were sold between March 2011 and April 2016 are prone to exploding when they are run on any setting higher than the delicate cycle. One woman told ABC News that she was standing next to her Samsung top-loading washing machine when it exploded. After the explosion, she discovered fragments of the machine all over the laundry room and described the corresponding sound as being akin to a bomb exploding.

The news outlet has received other reports of similar experiences regarding the Samsung washer. A consumer in Holly Springs, North Carolina discovered that her washing machine had exploded. It was only two months old at the time of the explosion. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has collected over 20 additional reports providing similar accounts of exploding Samsung washing machines. Some of these victims have filed lawsuits against Samsung, seeking damages for their dangerous product. One mother denied an offer of a refund from Samsung, choosing instead to file a product liability action. When asked why she turned down the refund, she indicated that the potential injuries the exploding device could have inflicted on her child were too severe and that she felt compelled to speak out.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a plaintiff who was receiving treatment at a hospital was injured as he was being moved on a gurney within the hospital by medical personnel. While the plaintiff was being transferred, the gurney tipped over, and he suffered fractures as a result. The plaintiff filed a claim against the hospital. The complaint was filed more than a year but less than two years after the injury.

In the plaintiff’s jurisdiction, general negligence cases were subject to a two-year statute of limitations, whereas medical malpractice cases were subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The defendants argued that the claim was filed too late, since there was a one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.

After the case was decided, the state’s supreme court then decided that in negligence cases involving the use of medical equipment, a specific section of the state’s code applied. The case was reconsidered in light of the supreme court’s holding. The court found that since in this case the negligence was related to the plaintiff’s medical diagnosis and treatment, the negligence occurred “in the rendering of professional services,” and his case was subject to the one-year statute of limitations.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

People sign contracts all the time. When someone purchases a ticket to a concert or installs a new software on their computer, they probably signed the contract without giving it much thought. It is only later when an issue arises that the terms of the contract really become important. However, a recent case shows how sometimes even if someone has agreed to the contract’s terms, the terms may not be legally enforceable.

In Alicea v. Activelaf, LLC, a Sky Zone trampoline park required customers to complete a waiver prior to entering the park. A woman signed the agreement before her husband took their children to the park. Later that day, one of the couple’s sons was injured while he was jumping on a trampoline. The family filed a lawsuit against the park. A clause in the agreement stated that customers waived the right to a trial and that the customers’ claims would be decided through arbitration instead. Accordingly, the park argued that the case should be decided through arbitration because of the clause in the agreement.

However, that state’s supreme court decided that despite the fact that the woman signed the contract, the clause was unenforceable. First, the court stated that although its state laws favored the enforcement of arbitration contracts, the arbitration language was camouflaged within the agreement, and as a result, the mother did not truly consent to the arbitration provision. Second, the provision also did not specifically state that both parties were bound to arbitration—instead, it stated only that patrons would be required to engage in arbitration. For these reasons, the court found the clause was unenforceable under the state’s laws and allowed the case to proceed in the courts.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a St. Louis jury awarded a woman over $70 million in a personal injury lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the company’s baby powder caused her ovarian cancer. According to one national news source covering the case, the plaintiff relied on several studies that have linked the long-term use of talcum powder, especially in the genital area, to ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson denies any claims that its baby powder is unsafe and told reporters that the company plans to appeal the case to a higher court.

This case is not the first that was filed against Johnson & Johnson alleging that its baby powder caused cancer, and it certainly will not be the last. In fact, there have been over 2,000 women who have filed product liability cases against Johnson & Johnson since evidence linking baby powder to cancer surfaced. Not all cases have made it through the trial process, but of those that have, several have resulted in multi-million-dollar verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.

The American Cancer Association explains on its website that “studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk.” It is unclear if there is a link between talcum powder and other forms of cancer. In some cases, judges have dismissed plaintiffs’ cases against the manufacturers and marketers of talcum powder, explaining that the evidence linking the powder to cancer is tenuous. However, as time goes on, it seems the link between the two is becoming more and more substantiated.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

After a year of consideration, California’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OHHA) has issued a final regulation for its “Safe Harbor” warning provision regarding Proposition 65. This new provision is designed to give consumers additional information regarding the contents of the products sold in California, particularly when it comes to potentially dangerous chemicals. The new regulation will go into effect on August 30, 2018, giving companies time to comply.

Between now and the date that the new provision takes effect, manufacturers can continue to print labels with existing warning language, as authorized by Proposition 65. This language will be deemed compliant even if the product is sold after the August 30, 2018 date, as long as the product was manufactured before then.

As another option, manufacturers can use the new warning label language immediately and avoid any issues with non-compliance following August 30, 2018. Also, the regulation states that any court order or final judgment approving specific language for a warning label will still be subject to that court order or judgment in lieu of the new label requirement.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Consumers are paying more and more attention to food safety. Federal regulators are also making the safety and reliability of our food system a higher priority. A recent survey from TrendSource, Inc., a San Diego-based data collection and analysis service, sought to figure out which perceptions diners have about food safety. The survey involved asking nearly 3,000 consumers who were at least 18 years old about a number of topics involving safety. The subjects included food handling, cleanliness, employee hygiene, and food-borne illnesses. The majority of the people who participated in the study were females with college educations, ages 31 to 60. The study focused primarily on fast-casual restaurants.

Approximately 65 percent of the people surveyed reported that they patronize a fast-casual restaurant a couple times each month and that they will visit on average four different restaurants during that timeframe. Over 80 percent of survey members prefer to see their food being prepared, believing that it gives them a better sense of whether it was prepared safely and helps them ensure its quality. An even higher percentage of participants stated that when the individuals preparing their food wear gloves, they believe their food is either safe or very safe to eat. Still, slightly more than half of the people surveyed indicated that they do not think employees at restaurants wash their hands after using a restroom, after taking a smoking break, or prior to handling food items.

When it comes to biases, almost half of participants said that they believe certain types of foods are more likely to be contaminated than others. Some of these biases were based on cultural cuisines, with Mexican food topping the list of cuisines most likely to cause illnesses.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Named after the infamous 1973 movie in which meal replacements are made status quo, beverage and snack bar maker Soylent has announced that it will temporarily stop manufacturing its formula 1.6 Soylent Powder after a landslide of consumer reports and major media outlets highlighted serious illnesses associated with the products. According to the company, which has received millions of dollars in venture capital investments, it is reviewing the formula to figure out which ingredients are causing people to become so sick.

Consumers who became ill after consuming Soylent snack bars reported experiencing symptoms similar to a food-borne illness., including stomach-related problems. The products underwent testing to see if pathogens, outside contamination, or other toxic substances were present, but all tests came back negative. This means that some ingredient or multiple ingredients in the product are allergens that should be listed on the packaging so that individuals can avoid them as needed for their health and wellness.

Although the company has temporarily stopped producing Powder 1.6, it has come out saying that fewer than 0.1 percent of people who consumed the powder suffered issues and that it has not received any complaints or reports regarding illnesses related to its other powder versions. So far, Soylent intends to return the snack bars and beverage mixes containing the suspect powder to store shelves during the first quarter of next year.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This month, a court in Georgia reduced a $4 million verdict awarded to the plaintiff in a Johnson & Johnson transvaginal mesh lawsuit in half, stating that a statutory cap on damages limited the plaintiff’s recovery to $2 million. The plaintiff requested that the judge refrain from applying the cap, but the judge declined. In addition to the $2 million award, the judge approved a $400,000 compensatory damages claim, making the total award to the plaintiff $2.4 million.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit was a Florida woman who filed a lawsuit after discovering that she suffered injuries and complications after being implanted with an ObTape Sling manufactured by Mentor Worldwide LLC and Johnson & Johnson. According to some estimates, nearly 35,000 women were implanted with the device between 2003 and 2006. The plaintiff received the device in 2004 to treat her stress urinary incontinence condition. Shortly after being implanted with the device, the plaintiff experienced the erosion of bodily tissues, including her vaginal wall, requiring substantial reparative surgeries. Among the many painful injuries she sustained, the plaintiff also dealt with ongoing and excruciating infections.

In her lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide sufficient warnings regarding the dangers associated with the ObTape sling device, including the erosion of bodily tissue, and that the company failed to provide sufficient testing to determine whether the product was safe for its intended use.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Property owners have more to worry about than just their own safety and the safety of the property. They also have to worry about the safety of other people who come on their land, sometimes even when a third party causes an injury.

Illinois premises liability claims are governed by the Premises Liability Act. The Act describes the duties owed by owners and occupiers of land. In Illinois, an “invitee” is a class of persons who go on the property of another for a purpose connected with the owner’s business or for an activity permitted by the owner on the premises. However, under Illinois law, owners and occupiers of land are not the insurers of the safety of people who come on the premises. Rather, the property owners owe a duty of “reasonable care” to them.

Generally, in order to hold a property owner liable, a plaintiff must show that a condition presented a risk of harm, the owner knew or should have known about the condition and its risk, the owner should have expected that people on the premises would fail to recognize the danger or protect themselves, the owner was negligent in some way, the plaintiff was injured, and the injury was caused by the property’s condition. As a result, landowners may have a duty to take measures to protect people who come on the property or to warn them of risks. Sometimes a risk is so obvious that an owner does not need to warn people about it, but it depends on the specific situation. A recent case in Ohio is an example of a case in which a grocery store failed to adequately warn or instruct its customers on how to use its grocery carts safely.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Boston Scientific, a company that developed a pelvic mesh product called Obtryx, failed in its effort to appeal a $18.5 million verdict against the company in a product liability lawsuit. In November 2014, a West Virginia jury concluded that the company owed compensation to four different women who received the Obtryx device. At the close of the 10-day trial, the presiding judge ordered that Boston Scientific must pay each plaintiff between $3.25 and $4.25 million.

Following the verdict, the Massachusetts-based medical device manufacturer appealed the award, asking the judge to reduce it on the basis that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the product is unreasonably unsafe. According to Boston Scientific, this product’s design and warnings were within the standard of care that applies for stress urinary incontinence products. The company also argued that the plaintiffs did not draw a causal connection between the alleged defects of the product and the injuries that they sustained. Boston Scientific also claimed that the warnings it included with the Obtryx product were sufficient and that the jury’s award of punitive damages was excessive.

On review, the appellate judge rejected Boston Scientific’s claims. According to the court, the record contained ample evidence that could support the jury’s conclusion that the plaintiffs had satisfied each element of the claims they advanced. For example, the defendant was misguided in referring to the standard of care for stress urinary incontinence. In a product liability action, the standard of care is the level of care that the manufacturer owed when creating the product, rather than the level of care a doctor owed in prescribing it.

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