Friday, March 29, 2019

Jury Orders Monsanto to Pay $80M in Roundup Cancer Case

Last week, a California jury determined Monsanto's popular Roundup weed killer was a "substantial factor" in causing a longtime customer's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. What was left to figure out was how culpable the company was in creating a dangerous product and failing to warn consumers. We now have our answer.

In phase two of Edwin Hardeman's trial, the same jury ordered Monsanto to pay him more than $80 million for failing to include Roundup's cancer-causing risk on the label.

A Dangerous Product?

"The evidence is overwhelming that Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," Hardeman's lawyer, Jennifer Moore, told The New York Times. "And despite that, Monsanto continues to deny that." Moore claimed Monsanto ignored scientific evidence regarding Roundup's harmful health effects, leading the jury to hold the company accountable.

The science on Roundup, it seems, is split. The World Health Organization deemed glyphosate, a main weed-killing ingredient, "probably carcinogenic" in 2015. But the EPA in 2017 claimed glyphosate it was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Now, a newer study relied upon by expert witnesses in Hardeman's trial linked large doses of the chemical to a heightened risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

In the end, the jury was convinced enough to award Hardeman more than $200,000 for medical bills (he underwent chemotherapy treatments and his attorneys claim his cancer is in remission), and another $5 million for his past and future suffering. The remaining $75 million of the award is punitive damages, based on Roundup's negligence and failure to warn.

Product Liability

Proving fault in a product liability case is no easy task, and generally require proof that the manufacturer knew its product was dangerous. Claims against chemical manufacturers can be based on:

  • Defects in Design: The chemical is inherently unreasonably dangerous to consumers;
  • Defects in Manufacturing: The chemical was improperly manufactured, dangerously departing from the intended composition; or
  • Defects in Warnings: The chemical product lacks adequate instructions or warnings, rendering it unreasonably dangerous.

In this case, the jury was sufficiently swayed that Monsanto knew Roundup was dangerous and failed to place adequate warning labels on the glyphosate-based product.

If you have more specific questions about product liability cases or feel you've been injured by a dangerous product, contact a local personal injury attorney.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/jury-orders-monsanto-to-pay-80m-in-roundup-cancer-case.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 22, 2019

Jury Rules Roundup a Substantial Factor in Man's Cancer

Scientists can't seem to agree on glyphosate. The popular weed-killer ingredient was deemed "probably carcinogenic" by the World Health Organization in 2015, but the EPA in 2017 said it was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." And then a new study suggests people exposed to large doses of the chemical have a heightened risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

But while scientists may not be able to say that glyphosate causes cancer, a jury can. Jurors in a federal lawsuit in California ruled that Roundup -- which contains glyphosate -- was a substantial factor in causing Edwin Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Science Roundup

Hardeman underwent chemotherapy treatments in 2015. This was after the 70-year-old used Roundup to kill poison oak on his 56-acre property for 26 years. Two of the expert witnesses who testified in Hardeman's case cited the latest study linking glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. According to the study's author, Rachel Shaffer, people who are highly exposed to glyphosate are 41% more likely to contract NHL than the overall population.

But this is just the first phase of Hardeman's trial. Now that jurors had determined the chemical to blame for his cancer, they must now decide how liable the manufacturer will be. Bayer AG acquired Roundup maker Monsanto last year, and continues to claim "glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer." Hardeman's lawyers, on the other hand, claim they have evidence that Monsanto attempted to manipulate public opinion and science to minimize Roundup's health risks.

Legal Steps

Hardeman's is far from the only lawsuit claiming Roundup causes cancer. Some 11,000 Roundup suits are pending in American courtrooms, around 760 of which are in front of the same judge as Hardeman's. His is considered a "bellwether" trial which could impact how those other cases proceed, although Bayer contends the jury finding "has no impact on future cases and trials because each one has its own factual and legal circumstances." Last year, a different California jury awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper who contracted lymphoma after using Roundup, although a judge later reduced the verdict to about $78 million.

Product liability cases can be complex, especially those that attempt to link products to cancer diagnoses. If you think a particular product is responsible for your cancer, talk to an experienced personal injury attorney about your legal options.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/jury-rules-roundup-a-substantial-factor-in-mans-cancer.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Theme Park Injuries: Brazilian Boy's Foot, Leg Allegedly Crushed on E.T. Ride

A lawsuit filed against Universal Studios is seeking $15,000 in damages after a mother says her son was injured on the E.T. ride at the theme park in January. According to the suit, Tiago Perez's left foot got stuck between the ride and a cement offloading area near the end, crushing his foot and breaking multiple bones in his toes, foot, and leg.

Here's a look at his mother's lawsuit, and similar injury claims against theme parks.

A Normal Kid

According to his family who witnessed the incident and his attorney, Thiago was doing nothing wrong as he enjoyed the ride. "He was just being a normal kid," Edmund Normand said, "a normal rider." Another boy injured his right foot on the same ride in 2002.

"Prior to this incident," the lawsuit alleges, "[Universal] had knowledge that the design, manufacture, testing, construction, and/or operation of the E.T. Adventure ride, created an unreasonably dangerous ride resulting in injuries to guests, but [Universal] continued to market the ride as safe to the unsuspecting public." The suit also claims that Universal updated its safety measures following the incident, pausing the ride near the exit so an employee could ensure riders' arms and legs were inside the vehicle.

A Frequent Injury

Universal declined to comment on the lawsuit to the Orlando Sentinel, but injuries at theme parks do happen. And here's what you should know if they do:

  • Top 5 Theme Park Injury Concerns: First, you should be aware of the potential dangers lurking inside any theme park. While we are all there for fun and games, there are still injury risks involved.
  • 5 Ways to Sue Over Theme Park Injuries: Not all injuries are the same. For instance, did you slip in a spill that a park employee failed to clean up? Or did a ride malfunction? Or maybe you were assaulted by another park guest. How and whom you sue will be different, depending on your personal circumstances.
  • 5 Personal Injury Lessons From Disney Lawsuits: The "Happiest Place on Earth" once faced 140 injury lawsuits over a 5-year span. So, what did the company learn from those suits, and what can you?

If you or a loved one has been injured at a theme park, contact a local personal injury attorney for help.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/theme-park-injuries-brazilian-boys-foot-leg-allegedly-crushed-on-et-ride.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 15, 2019

Can You Get Workers' Comp for Being Mauled by a Rhino?

Working alongside 4,000-lb wild animals may seem like an inherently dangerous job. And wildlife lovers may not have a whole lot of sympathy for a zoo employee injured by an animal that has already tried to escape twice and should be roaming free in the grasslands of Central Africa.

But a female zookeeper struck by "Archie's" horn at the Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens is probably just wondering if she can get paid for the time she'll miss work.

Archie Nemesis

Most employers are required to carry workers' compensation insurance, which reimburses employees for lost wages due to a work-related injury. A "work-related injury" is generally defined as one suffered while doing something on behalf of your employer or otherwise in the course of employment. While most of the injuries classified as work-related occur at the workplace, some covered accidents may occur at other locations or in company-owned vehicles -- as long as the employee was doing something connected to their job.

In this instance, zoo spokesperson J.J. Vitale said the zookeeper was injured when she came into contact with Archie during a routine training session. The zoo's executive director, Tony Vecchio, said zookeepers conduct the sessions with the animals to prepare them for medical exams, and the training generally involves teaching them how to open their mouth and lift their feet on command, as well as submit to blood tests.

While Vecchio also said there is always a safety barrier between the zookeeper and the animal -- and that there were vertical and horizontal bars in between the zookeeper and Archie -- Jacksonville Fire and Rescue confirmed she was transported to the hospital with serious injuries.

Zoo Workers' Comp

Workers' comp covers injuries which can be connected in some way to an employment requirement or condition, so it's likely the zookeeper will be covered in this case. If you're wondering if your work injury falls under workers comp, need help filing a claim, or you've had a workers' comp claim rejected, contact a local attorney for help.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/can-you-get-workers-comp-for-being-mauled-by-a-rhino.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Court: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington Can Proceed

In 2016, a Connecticut judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre against Remington, the manufacturer of the weapon used in the killings. But this week, the Connecticut Supreme Court revived part of the lawsuit, ruling that federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing tactics, and claims based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices could move forward.

Here's a look at the ruling, and what it could mean for future lawsuits against gun makers.

Laws, Lies, and Liability

The suit was initially dismissed pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law by George W. Bush in 2005. In the 4-3 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court largely agreed with that decision, finding that most of the claims raised by the families were precluded under the PLCAA and a gun manufacturer or dealer cannot be held liable for how a gun is used if the gun was sold legally.

But the parents' lawsuit also attacked Remington's marketing campaign, including ads for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack that invoked combat violence and told would-be buyers, "Consider your man card reissued." And the court said the suit could go forward under Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

That statute is aimed at harmful marketing and prohibits advertising the use of a weapon as a potential tool for "offensive military style combat" by civilians. Other Bushmaster ads featured soldiers on patrol in jungles along with the phrase: "When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers." Remington allegedly promoted the rifle to civilians as "the ultimate combat weapons system," and the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that "it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."

The End of the Road and the End of Immunity?

Appeals are assured and a jury may still find in Remington's favor, so the suit is far from over. But attacking a gun maker's ads through state consumer protection laws may provide gun violence victims a path to compensation that didn't exist before.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/court-sandy-hook-lawsuit-against-remington-can-proceed.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, March 4, 2019

Suitcases Keep Falling on Airline Passengers' Heads

When airlines started charging extra for checked baggage, wallet-conscious travelers started stuffing everything they could into their carry-ons. Anyone whose flown in the past few years can tell you the turf war for territory in overhead compartments is real, and flight attendants, too, can attest to the increased injury risk caused by the "carry-on crunch."

That risk has been borne out by lawsuits against airlines. Most recently, a Colorado man sued Southwest Airlines, claiming flight staff should've spotted an "infirm" passenger trying to load a suitcase in an overhead bin and intervened before the suitcase fell on his head.

Overstuffed Overhead Compartments

Charles E. Giebel II claimed he was waiting in his seat at Denver International Airport on his way to Newark, New Jersey in 2017, when another passenger struggled trying to put a suitcase in an overhead bin. Giebel's lawsuit alleges that flight attendants should've noticed the passenger was having trouble and helped him. Instead, the suitcase fell onto Giebel's head, striking his shoulder, right forearm, and elbow, causing shoulder and head pain, a bleeding abrasion, and other permanent injuries.

Southwest has thus far not issued a comment on the lawsuit.

Airline Liability

Overhead compartment injuries are becoming more common, and those "baggage may have shifted during flight" warnings don't quite apply in cases like this one. Giebel likely has a pair of claims against Southwest, for general negligence and a failure to properly train its employees.

Negligence require a person to prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care in a specific situation and that the defendant's failure to uphold this duty led to their injuries. In addition to generally being liable for the on-the-job negligence of employees, employers may also be liable if employees were not trained properly and that failure leads to an injury.

If you've been injured -- by falling luggage or otherwise -- talk to an experienced personal injury attorney about your legal options.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/suitcases-keep-falling-on-airline-passengers-heads.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 1, 2019

Pedestrian Traffic Deaths Highest in Nearly Three Decades

Even with all the new safety technology available -- from motion sensors and backup cameras to self-driving cars -- 2018 produced the most pedestrian fatalities since 1990; that's almost three decades.

What accounted for this continued rise in pedestrian deaths, and what can you do if you're hit by a car? Here's a look.

Why?

According to a preliminary report from the Governors Highway Safety Association, 6,227 pedestrians were killed on U.S. roads last year -- a four percent increase over last year, and up 35 percent over the last decade. While the number of fatalities decreased in 23 states, 25 other states (and the District of Columbia) saw an increase in fatalities, while two states remained constant. And over a third of all fatalities occurred on local roads.

One reason for the increase is that Americans are driving bigger, heavier, and more powerful vehicles like pickup trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. The GHSA report indicates pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs jumped by 50 percent between 2013 and 2017, while deaths involving passenger cars only rose 30 percent over the same period.

And while some technology can keep us out of accidents, other innovations are getting us into trouble. "Another possible factor contributing to the recent rise in the overall number of pedestrian fatalities," the report states, "could be the large growth in smartphone use over the past decade, which can be a significant source of distraction for all road users."

The report also indicated that about half of traffic crashes that ended in pedestrian fatalities involved a driver and/or pedestrian impaired by alcohol.

What Now?

When pedestrians are struck by cars, they may recover damages for their injuries based on the driver's (or someone else's) negligence. To establish negligence, legally, in a pedestrian accident, the injured person must prove that the person at fault:

In addition, survivors may file wrongful death claims in the event of a pedestrian fatality, and will also need to prove that the injured person's death was caused by the accident.

If you or someone you know has been hit by a car, contact an experienced car accident attorney today.

Related Resources:



from Injured http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2019/03/pedestrian-traffic-deaths-highest-in-nearly-three-decades.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)