All articles tagged with #product liability
A Los Angeles jury awarded $40 million to two women claiming Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer, amid ongoing legal battles over the safety of talc in their products. Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal the verdict, which follows other recent large settlements related to talc and cancer claims.
Apple's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that its AirTag devices aid stalkers in tracking their victims was unsuccessful, as a US District Judge ruled that three plaintiffs had made sufficient claims for negligence and product liability, while dismissing others.
A man is suing Intuitive Surgical, the maker of the da Vinci surgical robot, alleging that the robot burned and tore his wife's small intestine during surgery, leading to her death. The lawsuit claims that the company received numerous reports of injuries and defects related to the robot, and that it underreported the severity of these injuries to the FDA. The plaintiff is seeking damages and relief on the grounds of negligence and product liability.
A California family has filed a lawsuit against Hasbro after their toddler suffered severe and irreversible damage from choking on Candy Land Gummy Dots, leaving her permanently disabled with brain damage and spastic quadriplegia. The lawsuit alleges that the candy was unreasonably dangerous due to its extreme stickiness and lack of pliability, and that Hasbro failed to provide sufficient warning about the product's choking hazard. The family is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and is calling for the candies to be removed from shelves or for clear and accurate warnings to be placed on the product label.
A toddler in California is left permanently disabled after choking on a Candy Land Gummy Dot, leading to irreversible brain damage and spastic quadriplegia. The lawsuit alleges that the candy is defectively designed, excessively sticky, and lacks adequate safety warnings, and seeks more than $50,000 in damages from the candy manufacturer and toy maker. The family's attorney asserts that the candy was marketed to attract children and poses a significant choking hazard, resulting in severe injuries to the young girl.
Panera is facing two wrongful death lawsuits alleging that its Charged Lemonade, which contains an unusual amount of caffeine for lemonade, is linked to the deaths of two customers. The lawsuits claim that the product is defective and poses an unreasonable risk of bodily harm. However, the story highlights the shortcomings of the United States' regulatory regime, which relies on lawsuits rather than proactive safety measures. The FDA barely regulates caffeine, and the government does not require warning labels or disclose caffeine amounts on labels. The lawsuits raise questions about who should determine the safety standards for products like caffeinated lemonade and whether the current system of relying on lawsuits is the best approach.
A West Virginia judge has largely denied Amazon's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the company after a spy camera disguised as a towel hook was purchased on the platform and used to capture photos of a minor in her private bathroom. The judge ruled that Amazon cannot claim ignorance as the product descriptions approved by the platform suggested using the spycam to record private moments in a bathroom. The plaintiff alleges that Amazon's safety team failed to prevent the severe harms caused by the camera's use. The ruling could have implications for the spycam industry and Amazon's liability for selling such products. The case will proceed to trial.
A Florida judge has allowed a lawsuit against Tesla, stating there is "reasonable evidence" that CEO Elon Musk knew about a dangerous defect in the Autopilot system but still allowed the cars to be driven. The lawsuit accuses Tesla of intentional misconduct and gross negligence over a fatal crash involving the Autopilot system. The judge found that Tesla engaged in a marketing strategy that portrayed the products as autonomous, and Musk's public statements had a significant effect on people's beliefs about the capabilities of the technology. The plaintiff may argue that Tesla's warnings were inadequate. The judge also referenced a 2016 fatal crash and a video showing a Tesla using Autopilot without human intervention, suggesting Tesla was aware of the system's limitations.
A Florida judge has ruled that there is "reasonable evidence" to suggest that Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk were aware of defective Autopilot systems in their vehicles but still allowed them to be driven in unsafe areas. The ruling allows the family of a man who died in a collision while using Autopilot to proceed with a trial and seek punitive damages for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. This comes after Tesla won two product liability cases in California earlier this year. The judge's finding could potentially lead to Musk testifying, as it is believed that he was "acutely aware" of the problem but failed to address it.
A judge in Florida has ruled that there is "reasonable evidence" that Tesla CEO Elon Musk and other managers were aware of a defective Autopilot system in the company's vehicles but still allowed them to be driven unsafely. The ruling allows the plaintiff in a lawsuit over a fatal crash to proceed to trial and seek punitive damages against Tesla for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. The judge found that Tesla engaged in a marketing strategy that portrayed its products as autonomous, and that Musk's public statements about the technology had a significant impact on consumers' beliefs. The ruling is seen as a setback for Tesla, which had previously won two product liability trials in California.
An Illinois jury has awarded Tammy Reese, a Pennsylvania woman, over $7 million in a lawsuit against Conagra Brands, claiming she sustained burns on her face, forearms, and hands after a can of Swell brand cooking spray exploded in 2017. Reese's lawsuit is the first of more than 50 cases filed against the company by plaintiffs' firms, alleging that the cans, sold under brands like PAM, had defective venting mechanisms. Conagra Brands stated that the can in question is no longer in production and is evaluating its options, including an appeal.
Conagra Brands has been ordered by a jury in Illinois to pay $7.1 million in damages to a Pennsylvania woman who suffered severe burns when a can of Swell cooking spray exploded in a kitchen at her workplace. The verdict marks the first of several pending cases against Conagra involving burn victims who experienced similar accidents with their cooking spray brands. The company, which owns popular brands such as Pam, Marie Callender's, and Chef Boyardee, has refused to issue a product recall for the allegedly defective cans. The accidents are attributed to a venting system in the cans that releases flammable contents when exposed to high heat.
Gail Mitchell is suing NutriBullet after her blender allegedly exploded, causing severe burns to her chest, arms, scalp, and face. Mitchell claims the device's design can cause contents in the blender to become heated to dangerous temperatures. She is seeking compensation for medical bills, lost earnings, and punitive damages, alleging that the company knew about the risks and failed to adequately warn customers. NutriBullet has not yet responded to the lawsuit.