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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

If someone is killed by a gunshot when no one else was around, a lot of questions are left unanswered. It can be unclear whether it was an accident or whether the victim intended to take his own life. Even if it was an accident, it may be unclear what caused the gun to go off. Was it the victim’s own mistake, or was the gun defective? If a plaintiff wants to sue a gun manufacturer due to a defect, it can be a difficult case to prove. Plaintiffs often have to rely on experts to explain the defect and the cause of the accident.

In a recent case, a plaintiff struggled with these issues when she filed suit against Remington Arms Company, a gun manufacturer, after her husband died from a gunshot wound while hunting by himself. The plaintiff alleged that her husband died due to a defect in his gun, a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle. After he failed to respond to text messages from his family, a family member went to look for him where he had been hunting. He was found dead in a tree stand with a single gunshot wound to his chest. His rifle was found on the ground 15 feet below where he was. The rifle’s safety mechanism was off, there was a spent cartridge casing in the chamber of the rifle, and there was a rope attached to the rifle.

The plaintiff’s expert had filed a report stating that the rifle fired due to a defect in its trigger system. The Remington Model 700 rifle includes a “Walker” fire control system. This particular fire control system was unique because it included a specially designed trigger mechanism. According to the expert, rifles with “Walker triggers” had fired unexpectedly before. He stated that because of the unique design, dirt, moisture, or other residue could cause the connector within the rifle to fail to return to its proper position—which then caused the rifle to fire. He stated that there was residue in the plaintiff’s husband’s rifle and that it could have hit a tree, the ground, or the rope, causing it to fire.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Contaminación de los Comida es una seria amenaza para los consumidores y por una buena razón. Las enfermedades y lesiones que pueden resultar de consumir alimentos contaminados incluyen enfermedades graves, las condiciones que alteran la vida permanentes e incluso la muerte. Una de las cepas más notorios de enfermedades transmitidas por alimentos es la salmonela, que puede entrar en los productos alimenticios a través de una serie de canales. Los alimentos pueden contaminarse con salmonela durante la elaboración, envasado, manipulación o proceso si el manejador no se lava sus manos, o desinfecta las superficies en contacto con alimentos.

Cerca de 900 casos de brotes de salmonela relacionados con los pepinos contaminados han sido reportados en los Estados Unidos, incluyendo 241 en California, 43 en Minnesota, y 52 en Texas. Ha habido por lo menos seis muertes también. El material infectado estaba vinculado a Andrew & Williamson productos frescos, que importó los pepinos de México. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Food contamination is a serious threat to consumers and for a good reason. The illnesses and injuries that can result from consuming contaminated food include severe illnesses, permanent life-altering conditions, and even death. One of the most notorious strains of foodborne illness is salmonella, which can enter food products through a number of channels. Food can become contaminated with salmonella during the processing, packaging, or handling process if the handler does not wash his or her hands, or disinfect food contact surfaces.

Nearly 900 cases of salmonella outbreaks related to contaminated cucumbers have been reported across the United States, including 241 in California, 43 in Minnesota, and 52 in Texas. There have been at least six deaths reported as well. The infected produce was linked to Andrew & Williamson Fresh Produce, which imported the cucumbers from Mexico.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

En una reciente decisión judicial, Johnson & Johnson, el mayor fabricante del mundo de productos para el cuidado de la salud, debe pagar $72 millones a la familia de una mujer que afirmaba que los productos de la compañía causaron su cáncer de ovario y, finalmente, su muerte prematura. Este reciente veredicto fue la primera vez que un jurado encontró que Johnson & Johnson tiene que pagar daños relacionados con productos de talco de la compañía.

Los demandantes alegaron que el cáncer de ovario de la mujer fatal fue causado por el uso de polvos de talco de la compañía en sus productos, incluso en su talco para bebé y la marca Shower to Shower. Johnson & Johnson anuncio su producto Shower to Shower (que contiene talco) para la higiene femenina, afirmando que “solo un poquito al día mantiene el olor de distancia.” En 1999, la Sociedad Americana del Cáncer recomienda que las mujeres utilicen productos a base de almidón de maíz en la zona genital . El almidón de maíz es generalmente utiliza ahora en lugar de talco como un absorbente en polvo para bebés y productos de higiene femenina. Sin embargo, Johnson & Johnson sigue usando talco en algunos de sus productos y mantiene que es seguro. La mujer uso los productos durante 35 años para la higiene femenina. Hace más de tres años, se le diagnosticó un cáncer de ovario, lo que finalmente causó su muerte a los 62 años. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent court decision, Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest maker of health care products, must pay $72 million to the family of a woman who claimed that the company’s products caused her ovarian cancer and ultimately her untimely death. This recent verdict was the first time a jury found that Johnson & Johnson had to pay damages related to the company’s talc-based products.

The plaintiffs claimed that the woman’s fatal ovarian cancer was caused by the company’s use of talcum powder in its products, including in its baby powder and Shower to Shower brand. Johnson & Johnson advertised its Shower to Shower brand (which included talc) for feminine hygiene, claiming that “just a sprinkle a day keeps odor away.” In 1999, the American Cancer Society advised women to use cornstarch-based products in the genital area. Cornstarch is generally now used instead of talc as an absorbent in baby powder and feminine hygiene products. However, Johnson & Johnson continues to use talc in some of its products and maintains that it is safe. The woman used the products for 35 years for feminine hygiene. More than three years ago, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which ultimately caused her death at age 62.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

One of the most popular gifts on everyone’s Christmas lists last year was a hoverboard. These devices appeal to everyone, from kids to adults, and offer a chance to see what futuristic travel might be like. For all the ads and articles about hoverboards, however, it seemed like there were just as many stories about users suffering severe injuries while using the devices.

Recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a federal agency tasked with overseeing product safety and consumer health, issued a letter that essentially made the existing voluntary safety standard for “self-balancing scooters” a mandatory set of requirements. The voluntary standard is known as UL 2272 and primarily focuses on the device’s electric drive train, rechargeable battery, and charging mechanism. The guidance is designed to test the entire device and protect against any electrical or fire-hazard safety issues.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Construction sites can be very dangerous for workers. There are a number of injuries that can occur on the job. Workers are surrounded by dangerous machinery, and sometimes those machines can malfunction. However, even if a machine malfunctions, a plaintiff still has to prove that the company contributed to causing the injury in order to hold the company liable.

In a recent case, a construction worker who was injured by a crane while at work sued the company that leased the crane to his employer. However, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that even though the crane had malfunctioned, it was not caused by the company’s failure to inspect the crane.

In September 2012, the plaintiff was working at a construction site, and he and his coworker were moving a crane to another location. They approached a road with overhead power lines that had to be lowered for the crane to cross. The plaintiff signaled to his coworker to stop the crane at the base of some wood matting placed to help the crane cross. The coworker stopped the crane, but then the crane began moving forward again. The crane pushed the wood matting down, causing the plaintiff to fall and slide toward the crane. His foot slipped under the treads of the crane, crushing his right foot. His foot was severely injured and had to be amputated.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It seems like there is a never-ending stream of dietary health supplements hitting the market each day. While many of these supplements are considered hot trends or major miracle breakthroughs that can remedy a variety of ailments, they can also pose serious health risks to consumers. There have also been too many major news events involving dietary supplements that were so dangerous they had to be removed from the market entirely.

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued eight separate warning letters to companies that manufacture products containing cannabidiol (CBD) that are intended for use as dietary supplements. According to these warning letters, the companies’ claims that the CBD-containing products can help treat certain conditions like cancer, lupus, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other ailments were not appropriately verified by the FDA.

CBD products are non-narcotics containing ingredients derived from cannabis sativa, a plant that is also used to make the narcotic drug marijuana. Although some states have decriminalized and even legalized marijuana consumption, it remains illegal on the federal level.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Settlements can be a useful way for parties to avoid a long, drawn-out trial and still come to what they feel is a fair agreement. However, settlements often come with conditions. One of these may be a settlement agreement that includes a release of future liability. In a recent case, a settlement release barred all future claims arising from an incident against any parties. This meant that even though the plaintiff settled with a car insurance company, she was no longer able to sue her doctor for alleged medical malpractice while treating her for the injuries she sustained in the accident.

A 15-year-old girl was a passenger in a car when the driver of the car lost control and crashed. The girl was treated by a doctor for injuries she sustained in the accident. After bringing suit against the driver, the girl’s mother signed a release in exchange for a settlement with the driver and his insurer. The release did not discuss the treating physician or the clinic in particular, but it released all other claims that might develop from the accident.

The girl and her mother then filed a malpractice suit against the treating doctor. Specifically, they alleged that the girl’s arm would have healed faster and required less treatment if the doctor had done a skin graft and told her how to properly care for her wounds.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Today, there are thousands of lawsuits being brought against the makers of transvaginal mesh products, including Johnson & Johnson. This month, a jury in Georgia returned a verdict against Johnson & Johnson in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the manufacturer was responsible for injuries that the plaintiff sustained after being implanted with a Mentor ObTape transobturator vaginal sling. While the manufacturer of the device discontinued it in 2006, countless women received the device prior to this time.

Due to the incredible volume of cases involving health complications linked to the Mentor ObTape product, they have been organized into a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding centralized in the Middle District of Georgia. MDLs are similar to class actions in that common questions of fact and law are resolved on a broader basis, but they are different in that each plaintiff’s claim is evaluated individually and subject to a unique determination of whether damages are appropriate.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that her doctors prescribed and implanted a ObTape device to treat her stress urinary incontinence. Shortly after the surgery, the plaintiff began experiencing severe pain, infections, and a worsening of her urinary incontinence. She also required multiple follow-up surgeries to address these symptoms and will need extensive continued medical care well into the future.

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