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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
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 →

Published on:

By

Roughly 8.5 percent of women in the United States use long-term birth control devices like intrauterine devices or IUDs. This method offers up to five years of birth control by emitting low-dose hormones. The implant can be removed at any time if the woman decides that she no longer wants to use the device or decides that she would like to become pregnant.

Despite the purported benefits of many IUD devices, some of them cause serious injuries and painful consequences for patients. One example is Bayer, which manufactured an IUD device marketed and sold under the brand name Mirena. The Mirena IUD was approved in Europe in 1991 and was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000. Since its approval, the FDA has received over 45,000 reports of adverse events associated with Mirena IUD devices, including expulsion, migration, dislocation, and hemorrhaging of the vagina.

In the ensuing litigation and multitude of lawsuits filed against Bayer, patients alleged that Bayer intentionally sold the product despite knowing of the dangerous, painful, and life-threatening complications that could arise. The lawsuits were eventually consolidated into an MDL proceeding, which stands for multi-district litigation. Like a class action, common legal issues and factual issues are decided at the global level. When it comes to individual damages, however, each plaintiff must still prove his or her case before being awarded any compensation.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A state court of appeals considered two cases in which underage people were consuming alcohol on an adult’s house and then drove, getting into an accident. The adults knew that the underage people were drinking alcohol but allowed the minors to do so. In one case, one of the underage drinkers caused the death of another person after driving drunk, and in the other case, the underage drinker caused another individual serious injuries. The plaintiffs claimed that the adults were negligent in allowing the minors to drink on their watch. The state’s supreme court held that adults who allow underage drinking can be held liable to those who are injured as a result, including the underage drinkers. In addition, the court held that in these two cases, the adults owed a duty to these victims.

A 17-year-old drank during a party at an adult’s house, and when he left early in the morning, still intoxicated, he was killed when riding in another intoxicated partygoer’s car. In that case, a woman’s underage son had friends over. His mother was home and knew that underage people were drinking, but she did not tell them to limit or stop drinking. She also did not attempt to prevent any guests from driving.

In the other case, an 18-year-old had been drinking with a 26-year-old and another friend at the 26-year-old’s house. The man knew that the 18-year-old was only 18, that he had too much to drink, and that he would have to drive home. The 26-year-old offered him a place to sleep but told him he could leave if he was “sure that he was going to be able to drive.” The 18-year-old left early in the morning, and while driving, he hit a woman walking her dog on a sidewalk, causing her life-threatening injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When we patronize restaurants, we expect that the people in charge have taken appropriate steps to ensure that the food we consume will be safe and free of adulterants. What fewer patrons realize, however, is that these safety measures extend to ensuring that the employees and servers who prepare and deliver our food are free of diseases and infections that could easily contaminate us and our families. Recent reports have indicated that there are at least 135 confirmed cases of Hepatitis A outbreaks in Hawaii, according to the Hawaii State Department of Health. This represents over 40 additional cases since the department issued an update during the last week of July.

According to this recent update, one of the affected victims in the rampant and ongoing outbreak of the dangerous Hepatitis A virus includes an employee who works at a Chili’s restaurant location in Oahu. Another employee includes a Hawaiian Airlines flight attendant. Both of these employees have had substantial exposure to the general public. Also, considering that Hawaii is a popular tourist destination, it is highly likely that someone who has come into contact with these two affected individuals or another carrier of the virus has since returned home and come into contact with countless other individuals. According to a Hawaii State Epidemiologist, neither the employee at Chili’s nor the flight attendant have been linked to any additional outbreaks, and neither outlet is being deemed a source of the outbreak.

Another restaurant, however, was not so lucky. Employees at Baskin-Robbins, a Taco Bell location, Cosco Bakery, and a sushi restaurant were also identified as carrying Hepatitis A. Nearly 25 employees at the sushi restaurant, Sushi Shiono, tested positive as carriers of Hepatitis A.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case decided by a state appellate court, a 10-year-old boy was killed while riding as a passenger on a speedboat. While driving on a lake, the driver of the speedboat drove the speedboat between two warning buoys and hit a submerged pipe. The mother had taken her four children fishing on a lake with her boyfriend when the accident occurred. The boy’s mother settled claims against the boat’s driver and others, and then she sued the state’s Department of Natural Resources. The mother argued that the state was liable because it marked the pipe with buoys that were too far apart, the pipe’s placement violated state laws, the pipe was concealed, and the pipe posed a danger to individuals.

The state’s supreme court dismissed the case, finding that the public duty doctrine barred the mother’s claim. The court explained that the public duty doctrine means that if a duty is owed to the public in general, there can be no liability to an individual who is a member of the public. However, there may be a duty to an individual if a special relationship existed. In effect, the public duty rule acts to protect municipalities from liability arising from failing to adequately enforce laws and regulations.

Here, the court found that there was no special relationship between those on the lake that day and the Department of Natural Resources. Members of the public can use the lake at no cost and come and go as they please. There was a duty owed to the general public but not to individuals, and there was no special relationship between the state and recreational boaters. Thus, the claim was barred by the public duty doctrine.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently issued a safety alert for Wen hair conditioner products. According to the federal agency, these products may result in severe breakage, balding, rashes, itching, and hair loss. The products are the subject of ongoing litigation that was commenced in 2014 through a class action lawsuit. The low-lather conditioners, which were developed by celebrity stylist Chaz Dean, have been the subject of over 127 FDA complaints from consumers.

According to the safety alert, this issue constitutes the most reported adverse event associated with a hair product. In addition to the 127 complaints sent to the FDA, roughly 21,000 complaints were delivered to Chaz Dean, Inc., by consumers who used the product and experienced negative consequences.

The FDA safety alert states that the reason behind the adverse side effects is unknown and that the company that makes Wen cleansing conditioner products has been asked to provide data that could help the consumer safety agency determine the issue. There are a variety of ingredients in the products, many of which are harmless. Chamomile, aloe vera, soy protein, and almond oil are examples. A few ingredients are not as benign, like methylisothiazolinone and methlchloroisothiazolinone. Both of these preservatives have been associated with eye, skin, and lung irritations. The Environmental Working Group prepared a report about the side effects and dangers associated with these preservatives.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A woman filed a negligence case against a doctor after the doctor left a surgical sponge in her abdomen while she was undergoing gastric bypass surgery. The woman underwent a gastric bypass surgery in 2003, and she had several follow-up appointments in the subsequent years. The woman said that she began having uncomfortable sensations and pain in her stomach about one year after the surgery. The woman described these symptoms to her doctor at several follow-up appointments.

In 2009, she had a CT scan done for an unrelated condition, which revealed that she had a surgical sponge in her abdomen. She had it removed immediately. Less than a year later, the woman brought a medical malpractice claim against the doctor, seeking compensation for her medical expenses as well as for the pain and suffering she endured.

The defendants argued that the woman’s claim was barred because the statute of limitations had passed. The woman’s attorney argued that the claim was not barred, due to the “continuing course of treatment doctrine.” Under the state’s continuing course of treatment doctrine, a plaintiff generally needs to show that 1) there was a medical condition that required ongoing treatment or monitoring; 2) the defendant provided ongoing treatment or monitoring after the negligent treatment; and 3) the plaintiff brought the claim within the statute of limitations after the treatment ended.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Food Safety Inspection Service, which is the administrative arm of the USDA responsible for regulating food safety in the majority of food products containing meat, has issued a recall covering 8,800 pounds of ground beef from PT Farm, a New Hampshire-based operation. The ground beef is believed to be contaminated with the dangerous and potentially deadly pathogen E. coli. The recall covers products produced between June 6 and June 16, 2016. It was at this time that the first case of E. coli linked to the beef products was identified. Just last week, another individual was confirmed to be ill as a result of consuming E. coli-infected beef products.

E. coli symptoms can manifest in a variety of situations. For many people, fevers are common, along with gastrointestinal or stomach issues. Although affected individuals typically recover within five to seven days, there are some instances in which the individual must be admitted to the hospital. This is especially true for individuals with compromised immune systems, pregnant women, children, and the elderly. If you believe that you have consumed a food product that is contaminated with E. coli, it is critical that you contact a medical professional immediately to receive a proper diagnosis and medical attention.

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