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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

People of all ages can cause accidents—even children. But in cases in which the parents did nothing wrong, when can a child be held liable for his or her actions? One state’s supreme court addressed this issue in a recent case.

While a woman was babysitting a four-year-old, the boy threw a rubber dolphin toy at her, hitting her in the eye. Since the woman had previous eye injuries, the woman lost her sight in that eye as a result of the incident. The woman brought suit against the boy’s parents for negligent supervision, which was quickly denied. In addition, the woman sued the boy individually for his own negligence.

That state’s supreme court held that the four-year-old could not be held liable for negligence. The court decided that children under the age of five30 could never be held liable for negligence. The court reasoned that children under five years old have a limited ability to appreciate how their actions could result in harm and that they have a limited ability to control impulses. Accordingly, the court stated that there was very little possibility that a child under five years old would be deserving of moral criticism or capable of being deterred by the law. In addition, requiring a child to testify about his or her ability to understand consequences and impulse control is especially difficult when a trial would likely occur years after the actual incident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Federal, state, and local governments control much of our everyday life these days, and they have a vast number of employees. Bringing suit against the government can be very tricky. There are often issues of governmental immunity. Sometimes there are issues about when you will be able to receive the compensation you deserve.

Governmental Immunity

Governmental immunity grants many federal, state, and local governments immunity from tort claims in some cases. This means that generally lawsuits cannot be brought against federal, state, or local governments or their employees. However, there are many exceptions. For example, some claims in Illinois cannot be heard in circuit courts but can be brought in a special Court of Claims. Another example is that some statutes provide exceptions—such as U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows plaintiffs to bring claims who were deprived of their constitutional rights by an official’s abuse of his or her position. Also, while Illinois’s Tort Immunity Act generally protects local governments, a local government or employee may be liable for willful and wanton conduct or for quasi-intentional conduct. A government entity can also waive the immunity. For example, a state legislature may be able to waive immunity, making government entities liable. An entity can also waive immunity by contract.

Even if an exception applies or immunity is waived, an attorney’s assistance is essential to get the compensation you deserve. The government may offer too little in a settlement—or there could even be a delay in getting your compensation because the budget is in deadlock.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has issued a new 2016 Shopping Guide, indicating that strawberries are now the most heavily contaminated item in the produce section. According to the report, 40 percent of all strawberries contained residues from at least 10 hazardous pesticides. Some of the compounds found on the strawberries included known carcinogens, which have been directly linked to developmental and reproductive harm, hormone disruption, and cognitive issues, reports the EWG.

Strawberries are a seasonal crop, but the use of chemicals and pesticides has allowed growers to produce strawberries year-round. In 2014, over 2.3 billion pounds of strawberries were harvested in California, which is the country’s biggest producer of strawberries.

Other items on the EWG’s list of most contaminated fruits and vegetables include apples, nectarines, peaches, celery, grapes, cherries, spinach, tomatoes, and bell peppers.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

No one expects to be injured while attending a fair. However, accidents can happen anywhere. And as one woman found out, sometimes the purpose of the event can be the determining factor in whether or not a person can receive compensation for their injuries.

In a recent case, a woman sued a county fair after injuring herself on a grandstand. The woman went to the fair to watch a fireworks show. After she arrived, she began looking for a seat in a grandstand to watch the fireworks. She stepped on a rotten board, fell through the stands, and suffered injuries. The woman sued the fair, alleging that the fair was negligent in maintaining the grandstand and that she was injured as a result. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. It found that the fair was protected from liability because it had “recreational use” immunity.

While landowners generally owe guests a duty to maintain their premises, the state had a law that provided an exception for certain landowners who used their land for recreational purposes. The exception did not apply to for-profit businesses that used their land for commercial purposes.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Moll Law Group and Bayer have entered into a settlement agreement under which Moll Law Group agreed to dismiss with prejudice the pending litigation on behalf of its client in The United States District Court of and for the Southern District of Illinois. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Bayer agrees to pay the Plaintiff $1.5M and holds no admission of liability or wrongdoing of any position whatsoever in connection with any matters relating to Plaintiff’s alleged use of Ocella or otherwise.

The case involves a young woman who consumed the birth control pill, Ocella, manufactured by Bayer. In 2011, the young woman was 23-years and was a first time birth control user. Within weeks of her Ocella use, Plaintiff began experiencing problems that led to surgeries and partial loss of vision. The complaint, filed in 2013, states that the Plaintiff was prescribed Ocella and suffered injury including, but not limited to, loss of vision, blood clotting and various brain traumas that required continuous surgery.

Ocella is an oral birth control medication with a combination of 2 hormones: an estrogen (ethinyl estradiol) and a progestin (drospirenone). The complaint cites studies that suggest drospirenone is a diuretic that can cause an increase in potassium levels in the blood. This can lead to a condition known as hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium levels). Hyperkalemia can cause heart rhythm disturbances, such as extra systolies, pauses or bradycardia. If left untreated, hyperkalemia can be fatal. If hyperkalemia disrupts the normal heart rhythms, the flow of blood through the heart can be slowed to the point that it permits blood clots to form. Blood clots in the heart can lead to heart attacks, or the clots can break off and travel to the lungs where they can cause pulmonary embolism, or can travel to the legs where it can cause deep vein thrombosis, or it can travel to the brain causing a stroke.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Medical technology has led to some incredible breakthroughs and has allowed doctors to heal certain injuries and conditions that were previously next to impossible to address. For all their benefits, however, there are some instances in which medical devices do more harm than good. One current example involves surgical robots like the Da Vinci robotic surgical system.

In a recent case, Zarick v.1 Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a 44-year-old woman has alleged that the Da Vinci robot caused her to suffer serious injuries when it malfunctioned during her hysterectomy procedure in 2013. The woman underwent the hysterectomy procedure to address a number of cysts growing in her pelvic region.

The malfunction resulted in the plaintiff’s intestines prolapsing through her vagina. The plaintiff required a second surgery to address the physical damage, but the malfunction was so severe that the plaintiff was left with permanent injuries that prevented the plaintiff from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, among other injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Moll Law Group is dedicated to promoting education as well as injury prevention. By offering a semi-annual $1,000 scholarship award to the student who submits the best injury prevention essay, Moll Law Group wishes to help students alleviate the cost of college expenses. The following are the recipients of the Spring 2016 Moll Law Group Scholarship Award:

$1,000 – Winner – Evan Kaufmann

$100 – Finalist – Brittany Larsen

$100 – Finalist – Nathanial Kern

$100 – Finalist – Dwan Cowan

$100 – Finalist – Vanessa Infante

The Spring 2016 Scholarship application submissions were received from several different states across the nation. Only five finalists were chosen and ultimately only one winner was awarded the grand prize. As a consolation prize to the runner-up finalists who dedicated much time and effort to their entry, Moll Law Group awarded each a $100 award to be used towards college tuition and related expenses. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

CHICAGO, 18 de Abril, 2016: Un bufete de abogados de Chicago hoy afirmó que está investigando la interposición de demandas en todo el país en contra de AstraZeneca, los fabricantes de Prilosec y Nexium. Moll Law Group ha sido contactado y actualmente está investigando reclamos de enfermedad renal crónica, lesión renal aguda, nefritis intersticial aguda, insuficiencia renal, y ataque al corazón. Nexium y Prilosec son inhibidores de tipo bomba de protones (conocidos como PPI, por sus siglas en inglés) que se utilizan para disminuir la cantidad de ácido producido en el estómago.

Los inhibidores PPI se utilizan comúnmente para tratar la enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico (GERD, por sus siglas en inglés) y la enfermedad de la úlcera péptica (PUD). Prilosec, originalmente aprobado como Losec en 1988, fue el primer medicamento categorizado como PPI. Por su parte, Nexium es un PPI de segunda generación que se dice es una mejora en relación a Prilosec. Ambos son fabricados por AstraZeneca.

La edición de febrero de 2016 del Diario de la Asociación Americana de Medicina (conocido como JAMA, por sus siglas en inglés), publicó los resultados de un nuevo estudio que mostró un mayor riesgo de enfermedad renal crónica en pacientes que usan inhibidores de tipo bomba de protones tales como Nexium (esomeprazol), Prilosec (omeprazol) y medicamentos—recetados o de venta libre—similares. Los resultados mostraron que el riesgo de enfermedad renal crónica era mayor con el uso prolongado.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

CHICAGO, April 18, 2016: A Chicago law firm stated today that it is investigating the filing of lawsuits nationwide against AstraZeneca, the makers of Prilosec and Nexium. Moll Law Group has been contacted and is currently investigating claims of chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, renal failure, kidney failure, and heart attack. Nexium and Prilosec are Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) that are used to decrease the amount of acid produced in the stomach.

Proton Pump Inhibitors are commonly used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Prilosec, originally approved as Losec in 1988, was the first member of the Proton Pump Inhibitor class of medications. Nexium is a second generation Proton Pump Inhibitor said to be an improvement on Prilosec. Both are manufactured by AstraZeneca.

A February, 2016 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published the results of a new study which showed a higher risk of chronic kidney disease in patients using Proton Pump Inhibitors like Nexium (esomeprazole), Prilosec (omeprazole), and similar prescription and over-the-counter medications. The results showed the risk of chronic kidney disease was higher with prolonged use. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, a commercial truck driver alleged that another driver engaged in road rage, causing him to crash. However, after the jury found in favor of the defendant, the decision was vacated due to the defendant’s concealment of past traffic tickets.

The truck driver argued that the defendant cut him off and slammed on his brakes. The truck driver then had to swerve to avoid him, and he crashed his truck and was injured as a result. The truck driver testified that the other driver “gave him the finger” before the accident. The other driver fled the scene but was tracked by a witness. He was cited for making an improper lane change and pleaded no contest to the citation. But at trial, the defendant argued that he did not cause the accident and that he was falsely accused.

The jury found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant negligently caused the accident. After trial, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment because the defendant hid prior traffic citations during pre-trial discovery. The plaintiff argued that the defendant engaged in fraud, misrepresentations, or misconduct to get a favorable verdict. He said that the defendant hid evidence specifically requested in discovery and then presented evidence at trial contrary to the concealed evidence.

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