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

REQUEST FREE CONSULTATION
Published on:

By

Where a person files a claim can have a huge impact on the outcome of the case. Laws differ from state to state, and especially in today’s mobile world, often it is not clear which law applies. In a recent decision, one state had to decide this very issue—and the ruling meant whether the case was able to continue or whether the case was over.

According to the court’s written opinion, two Washington residents were involved in a single-car accident in Idaho. The plaintiff, a passenger in the car, filed a lawsuit against the driver, both of whom lived in Washington. The suit was filed in Washington more than two years after the accident. In Woodward v. Taylor, the issue that state’s supreme court had to decide was which state’s law applied. If Idaho law applied, the claim would have been dismissed because of the state’s two-year statute of limitations. If Washington law applied, the claim was permitted under its three-year statute of limitations. Ultimately, the court held that Washington law applied in this case, allowing the case to move forward.

The court noted that there was a presumption that a state’s laws apply where a claim is filed. In addition, the court found that a difference between statutes of limitations did not constitute a “conflict of law.” The court explained that a conflict of law means that the result of a case would be different under the laws of the two states. However, a difference between statutes of limitations was not considered in determining which state’s law applies. In determining whether a conflict existed, the court found that no conflict of law existed in that case because the relevant laws of negligence, speed limits, and comparative fault in the two states would have resulted in the same outcome. For that reason, the court stated that since there was no conflict of law, the law of their state applied, and the case could continue.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The United States Supreme Court has handed down a key ruling in Campbell-Edwald Co. v. Gomez, holding that a defendant’s offer of settlement to a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit does not render the remaining claims of the class members moot. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff brought a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, requesting damages for unwanted text messages that the defendant delivered to him and the other class members. Prior to seeking class certification, the defendant sent a settlement offer to the plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

After a defendant makes an offer of settlement under FRCP 68, the plaintiff has 10 days to either reject the offer or provide acceptance in writing. If the plaintiff does not respond, the offer is considered rejected. If the plaintiff rejects the settlement, a series of mechanisms kick in that affect trial and the payment of legal fees.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A number of recent food recalls have recently made headlines, putting consumers across the country at risk of suffering serious injuries or contracting a foodborne illness. First, popular pre-washed salad and leafy green provider Fresh Express has recalled 350 cases of its baby spinach products after almond pieces were located in the production supply. Although the almond would not pose any harm to many consumers, it creates a serious threat for those who suffer from an allergy to tree nuts, who can experience life-threatening symptoms or even death if they consume tree nuts.

Currently, Fresh Express has indicated that it is working with its distributors to remove packages of potentially contaminated products, which bear the product code G010A17A, and packages distributed throughout the Eastern and Southeastern states pose the greatest risk to consumers. It has also indicated that it is launching an internal investigation to determine how the piece of almond wound up in the production chain.

Heritage International (USA) has initiated a voluntary recall concerning its Raw Cashew Pieces product, stating that certain products may contain Salmonella. Covering only one lot of production, the packages contain 16 ounces of nuts in a clear plastic bag and are labeled with a barcode including the number 00505154 and a statement reading “BEST BEFORE 07.17.2016TF4.” The company sells this product at Trader Joe’s grocery stores, a national retailer focusing on the natural foods segment.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Ser dueño e invertir en propiedadas puede ser un negocio lucrativo. Algunos inversionistas compran una propiedad, la arreglan, y luego la venden por una gran compensación. Otros compran la propiedad, y la rentan a los residentes o a otros negocios, colectando dinero por el uso continuo de la propiedad. Por último, están los propietarios que viven en o ejecutan un negocio fuera de la propiedad de su propiedad, sin la intención de vender o alquilar la propiedad para el beneficio adicional.

En Illinois, no importa cómo los propietarios usan sus propiedades, deben tener un cuidado razonable para garantizar que la propiedad está libre de condiciones peligrosas. Cómo define la ley sobre un cuidado razonable, en parte, depende de las circunstancias, pero por lo general se requiere que un propietario realice las inspecciones necesarias, haga las reparaciones oportunas a condiciones peligrosas que se señalan o son reportadas, y advertir a los clientes de las condiciones peligrosas que existen en la propiedad.

Cuidado razonable también requiere que los propietarios reparen y adviertan huéspedes de condiciones peligrosas del dueño de la propiedad debe tener en cuenta, incluso si él o ella que pretende no tener conocimiento previo de un riesgo dado. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Owning and investing in property can be a lucrative business. Some investors buy a property, fix it up, and then sell it for a handsome profit. Others buy property and lease it to residents or other businesses, collecting rent for the ongoing use of the property. Finally, there are those property owners who live in or run a business out of the property they own, with no intention of selling or renting the property for additional profit.

In Illinois, no matter how property owners use their properties, they must take reasonable care to ensure that the property is free of dangerous conditions. How the law defines reasonable care in part depends on the circumstances, but typically it requires that a property owner conduct necessary inspections, make timely repairs to dangerous conditions that are noted or reported, and warn guests of dangerous conditions that exist on the property.

Reasonable care also requires that property owners repair and warn guests of dangerous conditions the property owner should be aware of, even if he or she purports not to have prior knowledge of a given hazard.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, in Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict awarding $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages in a product liability case alleging that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of a transvaginal mesh product.

The plaintiff was implanted with a Bard transvaginal mesh product to treat pelvic organ prolapse, one of the most common uses of mesh products. After suffering injuries and damages, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the product manufacturer in Georgia Federal District Court, alleging multiple theories of recovery, including negligence, design defect, failure to warn, and loss of consortium.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In December 2015, a state appellate court held that a hospital owed a duty to other drivers to inform patients about the effects of medication administered at the hospital.

According to one news source, on March 4, 2009, a patient sought treatment at South Nassau Communities Hospital in Oceanside, NY. As part of her treatment, the hospital gave the patient an opioid narcotic painkiller and a benzodiazepine drug. However, the hospital did not warn her that the medication impaired or could impair her ability to safely operate an automobile. After leaving the hospital and driving herself, the patient was involved in an accident that injured Edwin Davis. As she was driving, the patient’s car crossed a double yellow line and struck a bus driven by Davis. In Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., Davis brought suit against the hospital, alleging that the crash was the result of the hospital’s failure to warn the patient about the effects of the medication.

The court held that the hospital owed a duty to other motorists to warn the patient that the medication administered to her either impaired or could have impaired her ability to safely operate an automobile. The court reasoned that the hospital’s employees were the only people who could have provided a proper warning of the effects of the medication.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) is preparing to vote on whether to enact a proposed rule that would permit the Commission’s employees to participate in the numerous committees that create CPSC’s voluntary guidelines. The rule would also vest members with the ability to vote as committee members, while also authorizing them to lead committees subject to approval from the CPSC’s executive director.

The proposed rule was developed in response to a recommendation from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), urging the Commission to investigate the feasibility of taking a more engaged and active role in the creation of voluntary standards.

The CPSC develops voluntary standards, which create safety provisions geared toward identifying the countless consumer hazards that many products pose, including goods commonly found in schools, parks, playgrounds, homes, and other prominent locations. Due to the complexity of these guidelines, a great deal of work goes into their development, revision, final proposal, and enactment. Three committees were created within the CPSC to help create standards: the American Society for Testing and Materials, the American National Standards Institute, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

According to a news article, the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear a drug-maker’s appeal in a case that cost the drug company $124 million for falsely marketing a prescription medication. By declining the appeal, the court affirmed a South Carolina Supreme Court ruling that reduced the company’s damages from $327 million to $124 million, but it did not overturn a jury’s verdict that the drug company had improperly marketed the medication.

How Cases Get to the Supreme Court

Cases come to the supreme court in one of two ways. First, a case can be appealed to the court from a lower federal court ruling. These courts are called federal circuit courts. Second, a case can come to the supreme court from a state’s highest court. In either case, if the supreme court does not accept the appeal, the lower court’s decision stands.

What Happened in This Case?

The drug at issue in the South Carolina case is called Risperdal. Risperdal was introduced in 1994 for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It is also given to patients with autism who suffer from irritability and aggressiveness. Side effects of the medication include diabetes, stroke, and weight gain.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Medical devices are some of the greatest inventions of modern medicine and have helped countless sick individuals overcome painful conditions. Despite this, however, there are far too many instances in which a medical device manufacturer fails to ensure that its device is safe for its intended use. When this happens, the injured patients can bring a product liability claim against the device manufacturer to recover damages for their injuries. In some instances, plaintiffs can even successfully obtain punitive damages against the manufacturer, which are intended to punish a manufacturer whose conduct is found to be willful, reckless, and malicious and to serve as a deterrent for other manufacturers.

To prevail in a product liability claim, the plaintiffs must prove that the device was designed in an unreasonably dangerous manner or that the specific devices that the plaintiffs received suffered from a manufacturing defect that caused them to be unreasonably dangerous.

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