Products Liability

December 3, 2019

Who is responsible when a shooting victim seeks compensation for their injury?

rifle-with-smoke-200x300 Regardless of one’s personal beliefs about firearms, no one disputes the power and energy in a fired bullet. When a human is struck by a fired round, the consequences can be catastrophic. When someone injures another person by shooting them unlawfully, the criminal justice system can mete out appropriate punishment, but punishment alone does not make the victim whole. Moreover, where an individual is shot by accident, the criminal justice system many not engage judicial process at all.

Whether intentional or accidental, those suffering gunshot wounds may need to turn to a civil lawsuit in order to obtain compensation. However, questions remain about what legal theories are available and who can be held responsible?

If someone intentionally shoots another person, or if the shooter acts with reckless disregard for the safety of others when discharging a firearm, it can be a crime—except under certain circumstances, such as justified self-defense. A judge will typically order an individual convicted of unlawfully shooting pay restitution, together with the prescribed incarceration and fines. However, restitution may be limited to medical bills and other economic loss without taking pain and suffering into account. Under these circumstances, a civil lawsuit for the same shooting may be necessary to be fully compensated.

November 12, 2019

Growing safety concerns are taking a toll on foundering Juul Labs

by Neumann Law Group

Vaping-Cloud-300x225 In December of 2018, Altria, manufacturer of Marlboro products and one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, made a risky play and took a 35% interest in the vaping company Juul Labs at a cost of $12.8 billion. Over its three years of existence, Juul had climbed its way to become the dominant e-cigarette company, claiming 75% of the quickly emerging market.

On October 31, 2019, Altria cut the book value of its investment by $4.5 billion amid growing concerns about the safety of vaping. Governmental agencies have initiated investigations into several areas, including rampant use of vaping products by teenagers, concerns about health risks unique to vaping, and a string of deaths that some are attributing to vaping products. Juul has also found itself defending against several lawsuits, which are likely the opening salvo in a barrage of similar suits.

One lawsuit is a claim of whistleblower retaliation. Siddharth Breja, Juul’s former vice president of global finance, alleged the company had shipped over one million contaminated mint e-liquid pods to retailers. Breja alleges executive management refused to issue a recall despite his urging.

January 14, 2019

Cell Phone Use Is a Primary Cause of California Distracted Driving Accidents

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Brian A Jackson / Shutterstock.com

Texting while driving is a serious concern for drivers in California, as well as across the country. As the dangers become increasingly recognized, some are questioning the role that phone manufacturers have in texting-while-driving accidents. One of the major issues that accident victims face in this type of case is establishing what is known as “causation.”

Proving Causation in California Injury Claims

Causation is an essential element in any personal injury claim. Causation requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s actions constituted the proximate cause of their injuries. This has two separate requirements: proving that the defendant’s actions were the cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries as well as showing that policy considerations support a finding of liability against the defendant. To prove cause-in-fact, a plaintiff must show that something is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. To prove the second element of a proximate-cause analysis, a plaintiff must show that there is a sufficient connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, and also that the defendant should be held accountable in light of public policy considerations.

Recently, a federal district court of appeals issued a decision in a case brought against Apple due to its alleged role in a distracted driving accident.

October 24, 2018

California Plaintiffs Sue Breast Implant Manufacturers

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: nimon / Shutterstock.com

This cases arises out of a product liability action. The plaintiffs allegedly suffered injuries after breast implants they received ruptured and leaked. Plaintiffs can recover damages from the manufacturers of defective products. As your experienced Southern California product liability attorney can tell you, California law allows recovery as long as the plaintiff proves four different elements. First, they must prove that the defendant manufactured the product. Second, plaintiffs must prove that the product was defective when it left the possession of the defendant. Third, plaintiffs must show that they used the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Finally, the plaintiff needs to prove that they suffered harm due to the defect.

Jurisdiction

September 28, 2018

Strict Product Liability Case Heard After Car Accident

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: DedMityay / Shutterstock.com

One kind of claim that a California personal injury attorney may take is a product liability claim. Product liability claims are based in the theory that a manufacturer of a product is responsible for the injuries that occurred while a plaintiff was using that product. Of course, manufacturers aren’t always responsible for injuries that happen while someone is using their product, but if a plaintiff can prove that some aspect of the product is unreasonably dangerous, then they may be able to recover damages.

Kinds of Defects

Plaintiffs can pursue damages under a few different theories, including manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure to warn. A manufacturing defect is when most of the products are fine, but something happened during the manufacturing process to make the specific product the plaintiff used defective and the defect resulted in injury. With a design defect, all of the products made with that design are defective because of the way the product is designed. Failure to warn means that there is a dangerous element to the product that is not obvious and the manufacturer did not warn consumers about the danger. Continue reading

August 28, 2017

California Woman Secures $417 Million Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson

by Neumann Law Group

Last month, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that Johnson & Johnson must pay $417 million to a 63-year-old California resident. The plaintiff claimed she developed ovarian cancer from using products like Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder for feminine hygiene. The verdict was the largest yet in a series of lawsuits claiming that the New Jersey-based company failed to adequately warn customers about the cancer risks present in their talc-based products.The plaintiff developed terminal ovarian cancer following decades of using Johnson & Johnson talc-based products, specifically, its Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products. Her lawyers argued the company encourages women to use its products on their genitals, even though it knows studies link genital talc use to ovarian cancer. The plaintiff allegedly began using the products when she was 11. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007.

Her attorneys cited several studies that pointed to a link between long-term genital talc use and ovarian cancer, including a 1982 paper suggesting that women who used talcum powder for routine feminine hygiene faced a 92% increased risk for the disease. They also highlighted internal Johnson & Johnson documents dating back to 1964 to prove that the company was aware of the potential danger.

The plaintiff’s lawyer said the plaintiff and he were grateful for the verdict, which included $347 million in punitive damages and $70 million in compensatory damages. The company is facing 5,500 similar claims across the country. It was recently hit with over $300 million in judgments by juries in Missouri alone, where there have been five jury trials about talc-based products. Johnson & Johnson lost four of those trials, which largely were brought by out-of-state plaintiffs. The cases have raised jurisdictional questions after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in June limiting where personal injury lawsuits can be filed.

November 18, 2016

Herbicide Cancer Lawsuits Consolidated in Northern California

by Neumann Law Group

This month, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated 37 lawsuits alleging exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer causes cancer. The lawsuits were consolidated in Northern California, where two of the initial lawsuits alleging herbicide caused cancer were filed.The active ingredient in Roundup–glyphosate–has become the most heavily used agricultural chemical in world history. A study published this winter revealed that Americans have applied 1.8 million tons of glyphosate since it was first introduced into the market in 1974. That’s equivalent to the weight of water filling nearly 2,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools and spraying the herbicide on every cultivated acre of land on the planet. Its mass spraying has led to the explosion of resistant weeds, which have evolved to survive despite being sprayed.

August 8, 2016

Parents of Actor File Suit in California Against Car Company for Wrongful Death of Their Son Due to Defects

by Neumann Law Group

The parents of actor Anton Yelchin — who acts in “Star Trek Beyond” — have filed a lawsuit in L.A. Superior Court against Fiat Chrysler “for the wrongful death of their son due to significant defects.” At a press conference, Yelchin’s attorney indicated that the lawsuit was filed to punish the car company for the defective manufacturing of a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee that killed Anton.In mid-June of this year, Anton’s car, which was allegedly equipped with a defective electronic transmission shift, rolled out from the driveway of his home and pinned him between a brick pillar and a security fence. He was later found dead.

June 22, 2016

California Sues Johnson & Johnson for Failure to Warn About Dangers Associated With Surgical Mesh

by Neumann Law Group

Last month, California sued Johnson & Johnson for failing to warn patients and doctors regarding the risks and likelihood of complications resulting from the company’s pelvic mesh devices. The suit also alleges false advertising and knowingly concealing the risks linked to the devices. Specifically, the suit claims that Johnson & Johnson incorrectly marketed the devices as a safe alternative to non-mesh treatments for pelvic floor disorders, while knowing their use could potentially result in a number of side effects, including bleeding and losing sexual function.