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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

A nine-year-old boy in Maine has become seriously ill as a result of consuming ground beef contaminated with E. Coli O157:H7. The boy’s mother purchased PT Farm beef sometime in June 2016 and prepared it to serve to her family. Roughly five days after the family ate the meat, the boy began exhibiting signs of a serious illness. Common symptoms associated with E. Coli infections are diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. After the boy’s symptoms did not improve, his mother took him to the hospital, where he was admitted for several days.

The child is only one of about 14 individuals who have become ill as a result of consuming contaminated beef from PT Farm. The victims are located in a wide swath of states, including Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The illnesses have been recorded as occurring between June 15 and July 10, 2016.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service, along with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, have been actively involved in investigating the source of the outbreak. On July 26, the public entities announced that they had identified E. Coli in raw beef provided by PT Farm. They initiated a recall that covered some 8,800 pounds of the raw beef. Some of the brand names under which PT Farms beef is sold include Chestnut Farms, Robie Farm, Miles Smith Farm, and PT Farm. Some of the product may come frozen.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case in front of an appellate court, a woman slipped on a piece of watermelon at a grocery store and then sued the store for her injuries. About six feet away from where the woman had fallen, a man had been handing out samples of watermelon to customers. However, the woman did not know how long the watermelon had been on the floor, and there was no evidence that the watermelon was on the floor for any length of time. The woman argued that the store was negligent because it knew or should have known that the floor was wet and posed a danger to customers. She argued that handing out watermelon samples in a high-traffic location created a dangerous condition for customers.

That state’s supreme court granted a dismissal of the case. The court found that there was no evidence that the store created the dangerous condition through its employee’s distribution of the watermelons. It also found that the store did not have constructive knowledge of the dropped watermelon because there was no evidence of how long it was there. Finally, the court rejected the woman’s argument that the state should adopt the mode-of-operation rule, which looks at a business’ particular mode of operation in creating a dangerous condition, and under which the plaintiff is not required to prove that the store had notice of the condition. Since it rejected this approach, the case failed.

Mode of Operation Liability and the Illinois Approach

Generally, in slip-and-fall cases, a plaintiff must prove that the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition that caused the injury. That means that the plaintiff must prove through some evidence that the store had actual knowledge of the condition or that it existed for long enough that the store had constructive knowledge, or should have known, of the condition.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A recent case being brought by a mother in Texas highlights the many not-so-obvious ways that contamination can result in serious injuries and even death. According to her complaint, the woman’s son died tragically as a result of her apartment complex’s failure to address contamination leaking from a cesspool. The mother was 22 weeks pregnant when she became so ill that her physicians were required to prematurely induce labor in an attempt to save her baby’s life.

The doctors concluded that the plaintiff had a severe E. coli infection, resulting from water in the cesspool leaching into various places on the property. As a result of her infection, her unborn baby developed a bacterial infection called chorioamnionitis. This infection, which targets the uterus, is commonly derived from E. coli. The baby was unable to survive and died roughly two hours after the induced delivery.

The mother and her husband lived at the apartment complex starting in December 2013. The family first noticed that they were experiencing health issues around June 2015, including urinary tract infections, diarrhea, and vomiting. Other residents at the apartment complexes reported experiencing similar health maladies. The plaintiff first learned that she was with child in November 2015 and became seriously ill in February 2016. During that same month, a company was hired to work on the apartment complex. They reported that a large cesspool had been discovered underneath the building and that it had contaminated the drinking water for the building. They also submitted a proposal to fix the problem, but the apartment complex has done nothing to fix the cesspool. The apartment complex operator denies having received a report identifying E. coli on the premises and denies that the plaintiffs ever reported their illnesses.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Strange, unexpected acts happen every day. Thus, even when an individual or entity may have acted negligently, they are not always held responsible if an unusual or unexpected event occurs, thereby causing harm. In order to prove a negligence claim in this type of situation, a plaintiff must prove the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. Additionally, in order to have a successful claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the injuries at issue. Causation in a negligence claim requires a showing of both factual cause, or “but-for” cause, and proximate cause, or “legal” cause. Generally, this requires that the plaintiff show that the resulting injuries were foreseeable, rather than merely a remote result of the breach.

However, if another act occurs that intervenes after the defendant’s conduct or contributes to the harm, that act may amount to a “superseding” cause, which can cut off the defendant’s liability. In order to be a superseding cause, the subsequent act must break the chain of causation between the defendant’s negligent conduct and the resulting harm. That is, generally it must be something that could not be reasonably anticipated by the defendant.

The Effect of “Acts of God” on Causation in Negligence Claims

Generally, an individual is not expected to foresee unusual or extreme conditions, often referred to as “acts of God” in legal claims. If one of these conditions occurs, usually it will amount to a superseding cause because it was not foreseeable. This means that the defendant may not be liable for the resulting harm. However, whether an occurrence is an “act of God” or not depends heavily on the facts of the situation and what is expected under the circumstances. Also, it is often considered a fact for a jury to determine, which would require the case to go to trial in order to be decided.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One increasingly popular therapy for treating prostate cancer is testosterone replacement therapy, or TRT. It has become quite common during the last 10 years. Until recently, testosterone hormone treatments were only given in situations in which a patient has a rare medical condition like hypogonadism.

Although the majority of men who take testosterone replacement therapy routinely do not have hypogonadism, they can access the drug as the result of a loophole in the FDA’s regulations governing TRT. This loophole authorizes physicians to prescribe certain drugs for uses that are not included on the label. So far, the FDA has only authorized TRT for men experiencing low levels of testosterone due to medical conditions limiting production of testosterone in the testicles.

Referred to as off-label uses, there has been a recent surge in the number of instances in which doctors are being fined and disciplined for permitting Low T clinics to give testosterone prescriptions to patients without ever actually meeting or examining the patient.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Technology in cars is advancing quickly, and many see self-driving cars as the future of transportation. However, these cars present new risks, including privacy concerns and safety risks. Automated cars, also referred to as self-driving vehicles, or autonomous or driverless vehicles, can include a wide range of technologies. These include automated parallel parking assistance, automatic braking, lane-centering, and complete performance of all driving functions. Automated driving can offer many benefits to consumers. For one, it can be very convenient. They also offer many safety benefits. The NHTSA conducted a survey and discovered that over 90 percent of all car accident deaths are caused at least in part by driver inattention or other errors that may be preventable with automated driving. For example, human drivers may be distracted, speed, disobey traffic rules, or misjudge road conditions.

Yet, while they offer many benefits, they also present new legal issues. One issue that may arise in these automated cars is the question of who is the driver. That is, is it the person behind the wheel or the manufacturer of the technology? Laws today generally only consider the person behind the wheel to be in control of the vehicle, but that may change as automated cars become more prevalent, and the technology makes further advances. Also, there are concerns that cars could now be targeted for cyber attacks, which could cause liability to shift to the hacker or to the company responsible for the software.

Several states already allow automated cars, or at least the testing of automated cars on their roads. And many manufacturers are pushing for legal changes that support the use of automated cars.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many patients have brought claims against Medtronic, the maker of spinal fusion device InFuse, alleging that they suffered serious injuries as a direct result of the device and that Medtronic failed to warn them about the potential side effects. The lawsuits also state that Medtronic encouraged surgeons and other medical professionals to use the device in unapproved, off-label procedures.

The FDA approved InFuse in 2002 to be used in limited spinal procedures. The device consists of a so-called bone paste containing a synthetic protein known as recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein, or rhBMP-2. The paste is designed to promote bone growth and encourage spinal injuries to fuse together. In 2004, the device was approved for use in tibia repairs, and in 2007, it was approved for dental surgeries.

Now, the University of California is agreeing to pay $8.5 million in settlements for two lawsuits that claim a surgeon formerly employed by the University of California, Los Angeles used Medtronic’s InFuse without disclosing that he has financial ties to Medtronic. Reports also indicate that in one of the surgeries, the physician used InFuse in an off-label procedure. The FDA did not approve InFuse for use in cervical spinal operations. After the procedure, the patient alleged that he suffered from serious bone overgrowth, which resulted in chronic nerve damage and other devastating and debilitating injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Injuries that occur as a result of food poisoning can give rise to a number of different claims for the harm suffered. Those who seek compensation for personal injuries resulting from the consumption of contaminated food or beverages can assert claims based on negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, violation of food laws, and strict liability.

For one, individuals can allege breach of warranty claims to recover compensation for their injuries. Breach of warranty claims can include express and implied warranties. For example, Illinois courts have found liability for a breach of an implied warranty of fitness when a manufacturer sold poisoned flour. In order to recover in a breach of warranty claim, there generally must be privity of contract. Privity of contract often requires that the injured person have purchased the goods from the manufacturer. This can include sellers of goods as well, yet courts have been hesitant to extend liability in such cases, particularly if the seller had no way to inspect the goods.

General Mills Expands Recall of Flour

General Mills announced an expansion to its flour recall resulting from a possible E. Coli outbreak. According to one news source, the updated recall covers different varieties of flour of the Gold Medal and Signature Kitchens brands, produced through February of this year. Four new cases were reported, causing the company to expand the recall. The outbreak has already caused illnesses to 46 people throughout 21 states. Thirteen of those people have required hospitalization. One person suffered from kidney failure as a result.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A California state court recently denied Johnson & Johnson’s appeal of an $8 million verdict against the company regarding its DePuy ASR XL metal-on-metal hip implant device. The device is manufactured by DePuy Orthopedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The trial that yielded the multi-million dollar verdict was but one of thousands of lawsuits that have been filed against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy, alleging that the hip implant devices caused serious injuries and that the companies failed to provide sufficient warnings about the potentially life-altering side effects that could result. The plaintiff, Loren Kransky, alleged that his device failed only five years after he received the implant. During the March 2013 trial, which lasted for five weeks, the California jury concluded that the device was designed in a defective manner and that both Johnson & Johnson and DePuy were negligent in the design, manufacture, and marketing of the hip implant device.

The plaintiff in the present case, Loren Kransky, alleged that his device failed only five years after he received the implant. During the March 2013 trial, which lasted for five weeks, the California jury concluded that the device was designed in a defective manner and that both Johnson & Johnson and DePuy were negligent in the design, manufacture, and marketing of the hip implant device.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a woman was injured after she tripped on a large crack between two sidewalk slabs. The woman sued the city, arguing that the city was liable for failing to maintain the sidewalk in reasonable repair. She claimed that the sidewalk’s hazardous condition had been present for over 30 days before she fell. Indeed, under state law, this was a necessary element that needed to be proved in order for her case to be successful.

Under the state’s law, for a sidewalk defect case, a plaintiff was required to prove that the city knew or should have known about the existence of the defect at least 30 days before the injury. If there was an obvious defect at least 30 days before the injury, the city was presumed to have knowledge of the defect. The city took the woman’s deposition, and during her deposition she stated that she did not know how for how long the condition had been there. The woman submitted three photographs taken about 30 days after the accident, which were the only relevant evidence she had of the condition. The city moved to have the case dismissed. That state’s supreme court found that the evidence of the photograph could not show that the defect existed at least 30 days before the woman’s accident. Thus, the case had to be dismissed.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is a decision made by a court based on the available evidence. The judgment considers whether there is sufficient contradictory evidence that amounts to a dispute of an issue of material fact. If there is a sufficient dispute, the case should be sent to trial so that a judge or jury can resolve the factual dispute based on the evidence presented at trial. The purpose of summary judgment is not to make a decision on a factual dispute but instead to decide whether a factual dispute exists.

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