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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

In a recent case, a boy and his parents brought a lawsuit against school officials after he was hit by a car at his school’s driveway on his way to school. The school was located near a highway, and the school’s entrance was busy around the opening and dismissal times during school days. There was no traffic light or person directing traffic at the intersection of the driveway. The boy alleged the superintendent, principals, assistant principals, and others negligently supervised school staff and students during school hours. The defendants claimed they were shielded from liability through governmental immunity.

The state’s supreme court found certain defendants were shielded by immunity. However, the court found the assistant principals could be held liable because they may have breached their duty to assign school staff to supervise students during school hours. One of the assistant principals had been responsible for assigning school staff members to supervise student duties throughout the school. However, the school could not produce the names of people who were assigned to “bus duty” on the day of the accident or during the two weeks before the accident.

The court explained that municipal employees are immune from liability for “discretionary” acts but not “ministerial” acts (those performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion). Considering this, the court found it was not clear the assistant principals had satisfied their ministerial duties because the assistant principals’ duties included not only preparing the bus duty assignments but also distributing the assignments to staff. Here, it was not clear they created and distributed the bus duty assignments. As a result, there was a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether they breached their duties.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last month, Zimmer Biomet, a company that manufactures medical devices, won a lawsuit against a plaintiff who alleged that he suffered serious injuries as a result of being implanted with Zimmer Biomet’s NexGen Flex knee replacement device. The federal judge presiding over the Illinois lawsuit declared that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the product suffered from a design defect.

In 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating medical devices, among other things, approved the NexGen Flex device. It is designed to offer greater flexibility than other devices designed for knee replacement.

Since then, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer, alleging that the device is unreasonably dangerous because it cannot withstand the force of extra flexion. The company, which is based in Warsaw, Indiana, denied that the device is unable to withstand this extra flexion in marketing materials associated with the device. Other plaintiffs have alleged that the device is susceptible to premature weakening because of a design flaw, leading to multiple revision surgeries to correct the errors.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a man sued the maker of his utility terrain vehicle (UTV) after the UTV overturned, and the roof failed, causing his injuries. The man designated four expert witnesses to testify in his case at trial. For one of the experts he designated, the man said the expert would testify as to the UTV’s performance, the forces involved in the accident, and factors affecting the UTV’s performance. The man did not explain the expert’s analysis or his conclusions on the issues in the case. Shortly afterward, the man told the defendant and the court that he was no longer going to use the expert as one of his witnesses. However, the defendant then requested to have the expert’s deposition taken, seemingly to find out what his conclusions were.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that the expert’s opinions and conclusions were protected by the “work product doctrine”—a doctrine that protects materials prepared for or by an attorney in anticipation of litigation. The defendant argued the plaintiff had waived any protection under the work product protection because, as an expert, the conclusions would have been disclosed.

The trial court agreed with the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had waived the protections of the work product doctrine by designating the expert as a witness. However, the state’s supreme court reversed. The court concluded that a party designating an expert witness by itself is not a waiver of the work product doctrine. It also concluded that in this case, the man’s actions did not waive the work product privilege. As a result, the expert’s conclusions were protected under the work product doctrine, and the plaintiff did not have disclose them to the defendants.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

We place a great deal of trust in our food safety system. We trust that the individuals who harvest, package, prepare, and serve our food are using reasonable care to ensure that the food is handled and stored in a manner that reduces the chances for contamination to occur. Although this system works in most cases, there are some unfortunate instances in which individuals take advantage of the system and put consumers at risk.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office recently reported that a resident in Miami-Dade County was sentenced to almost one-and-a-half years in prison for knowingly distributing contaminated cheese. The defendant, Christian Rivas, owns a food business based in Miami called Oasis Brands, Inc. According to Count I of the indictment, the defendant engaged in intentional fraud when he delivered a packaged cheese product packaged at the facility that contained listeria. This is an incredibly harmful food contaminant that can lead to serious health consequences, sometimes requiring hospitalization and even leading to death on some occasions.

According to documents filed in the court proceeding, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services received an alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, indicating that cheese provided by the defendant’s company was randomly sampled on July 26, 2015, and tested positive for listeria. The FDA then conducted an inspection of the facility, which revealed several violations of good manufacturing practices. Numerous environmental swab samples from the premises also tested positive for listeria.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a jury returned a massive $70 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America in a lawsuit regarding the company’s talcum powder products. The verdict constituted $67.25 million against Johnson & Johnson, $65 million of which represented a punitive damages award. The jury assigned $2.75 million in damages against Imerys Talc America and $2.5 million in punitive damages. Unlike other types of damages, punitive damages are designed to punish a defendant that engages in willful, malicious, and reckless conduct.

The plaintiff, Deborah Giannecchini, a 62-year-old woman, alleged that she used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder products for over 40 years until she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2013. Based on her treating physicians’ analysis, Mrs. Giannecchini faces an 80 percent chance of dying as a result of ovarian cancer in the next two years. She has also undergone chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery in an attempt to treat her cancer. During the trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer offered evidence suggesting that Johnson & Johnson had been aware of the link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer for three decades through their possession of scientific studies.

The basis of the jury’s conclusion was that Johnson & Johnson should have provided a warning to consumers about the risk of using talcum powder-based products and the potential to develop ovarian cancer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A principios de este mes, un jurado determinó un veredicto masivo de 70 millones de dólares contra Johnson & Johnson e Imerys Talc America en una demanda relacionada a los productos de talco en polvo de la compañía. El veredicto constituyó $ 67.25 millones en contra de Johnson & Johnson, $65 millones de los cuales representaron una indemnización por daños punitivos. El jurado asignó $ 2.75 millones en daños contra Imerys Talc América y $ 2.5 millones en daños punitivos. A diferencia de otros tipos de daños, los daños punitivos están diseñados para castigar a un acusado que se involucra en una conducta voluntaria, maliciosa e imprudente. La demandante, Deborah Giannecchini, una mujer de 62 años, alegó que utilizó los productos en polvo para bebés de Johnson & Johnson durante más de 40 años hasta que se le diagnosticó cáncer de ovario en 2013. Basándose en el análisis de sus médicos, la Sra. Giannecchini tiene un 80 por ciento de posibilidades de morir como resultado del cáncer de ovario en los próximos dos años. También ha sido sometida a quimioterapia, radiación y cirugía en un intento de tratar su cáncer. Durante el juicio, el abogado del demandante ofreció pruebas que sugieren que Johnson & Johnson estaba consciente de la relación entre el talco en polvo y el cáncer de ovario durante tres décadas mediante estudios científicos en su poder.

La base de la conclusión del jurado fue que Johnson & Johnson debería haber advertido a los consumidores sobre el riesgo de usar productos de talco en polvo y el potencial de desarrollar cáncer de ovario.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a woman sued a casino after she was injured while boarding the casino’s shuttle bus. The woman was attempting to board a crowded shuttle bus provided by a casino when she claims she was pushed and fell. She suffered a broken bone in her hip that required immediate surgery. The casino operated the free shuttle for certain people and picked them up at different places to take them to the casino. One witness said that there was often a chaotic scene at the shuttle bus pickup at that time. Despite that, no additional precautions were taken by the casino to ensure passengers boarded the bus safely.

The woman sued the casino for negligence as a result. She argued that the casino was a “common carrier” and had a duty and a responsibility to ensure the safety of its customers who used its shuttle bus. She argued that the casino knew or should have known of the dangers inherent in boarding the crowded shuttle bus and that it should have made the process safer. The woman alleged the casino was a common carrier, which meant that the casino had a higher duty of care under certain circumstances. The casino argued it was not a common carrier and did not have a heightened duty of care.

Continue reading →

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 →

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