The Miller Firm representing 3 of the 4 Plaintiffs in trials that have occurred to date, continues to eagerly press forward and seek additional trial settings. In particular, the Miller Firm has trial dates scheduled for January 2020 in St. Louis, January 2020 in Contra Costa, and February 2020 in San Francisco. We are continuing… Read more →
When we use a consumer product, we believe that its designers, manufacturers, and distributors have made sure the product is safe. Unfortunately, manufacturing flaws and other problems can result in consumer product-related injuries. While no product is completely safe, parties in the production and distribution “chain” have a duty to convey to consumers all possible risks associated with their product. If a responsible party fails to make a safe product and convey possible risks to consumers, they can be held culpable in a product liability lawsuit.
Approximately one-half of all emergency room visits are made by consumers who have been injured by a consumer product. A variety of products can cause consumer injuries, including medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, toxic materials, industrial products, food, drinks, tobacco, baby products, airplanes, automobiles, and much more.
Any party in the production or distribution “chain” can be held liable in a product liability lawsuit. This includes the product’s designer, maker, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, or repairer. There are three main legal arguments used in product liability cases to establish culpability for a consumer’s product injury-related losses and suffering. These are negligence, breech of contract, and strict liability.
Under negligence, a party can be held responsible for consumer product injuries if they failed to do fulfill a duty in the making or marketing of the product. Under breech of warranty, the injured consumer may argue the manufacturer violated some explicit or implicit agreement with the consumer. In the case of strict liability, the injured consumer only has to show that the product was the proximate cause of their injuries. Even if the maker took every precaution to ensure their product was safe, they can still be held responsible under strict liability.
In most product liability cases, the injured party must show that the product was reasonably dangerous or somehow failed to meet consumer expectations. To deem a product reasonably dangerous, its risks typically must outweigh its intended benefits. When a product is more of a risk than a benefit to consumers, it can be considered defective.
If a defective product has seriously injured you or someone you love, you may be eligible to seek compensation for your losses and suffering in a product liability lawsuit. Please contact a qualified product liability attorney to help protect your interests in a product liability case.
Mediator Appointed for Monsanto Roundup MDL (Multi-District Litigation) – Here’s What You Should Know A California federal judge has appointed high-profile mediator, Ken Feinberg, in the Multi-District Litigation against Monsanto over their Roundup weed-killer. This decision comes in the midst of a heated battle between the chemical conglomerate and countless individuals who developed cancer after… Read more →
Miller Firm was proud to achieve another historic victory against Roundup, helping our clients seek the justice they deserve. Juries across the nation continue to deliver guilty verdicts against Monsanto, the company behind the household weed-killer Roundup. Most recently, an Oakland, CA jury ordered Monsanto to pay $2 billion in damages to our clients—a couple… Read more →
On March 27, 2019 a San Francisco jury ruled in favor of Plaintiff Edward Hardeman over Monsanto related to allegations that Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The unanimous decision by the jury included an award of $5 million dollars in compensatory damages along with $75 million dollars in punitive damages. The case was the 2nd… Read more →
A California federal jury found Tuesday that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller was likely a substantial factor in causing a man’s cancer….
March 8, 2019 – Oakland, California – – The trial of Pilliod v. Monsanto Company (now Bayer) begins with jury selection on Monday, March 25, 2019, in Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda before Judge Winifred Smith. Attorneys for the plaintiffs anticipate the trial will last about a month. Pilliod v. Monsanto… Read more →
Dave Dickens of the Miller Firm, LLC has been awarded the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award by the National Trial Lawyers Organization. The prestigious award is for Dave and the Trial Team’s efforts in obtaining a $289,000,000 verdict for Lee Johnson against Monsanto for claims related to Roundup causing Mr. Johnson’s cancer. “We… Read more →
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup® herbicide, is a probable human carcinogen. This chemical has been found throughout the global food system and to an increasing and alarming amount in human beings. In Oct. 2017, the European Parliament… Read more →
Since a California jury awarded a $417 million verdict to plaintiff Eva Echeverria in August, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has attempted to escape accountability on a variety of fronts. J&J argues that the verdict is too large and that the parent company should not be held responsible, among other evasive complaints. Attorney Michael J. Miller… Read more →
The European Parliament has banned Monsanto lobbyists. The ban was put into effect in reaction to Monsanto’s refusal to comply with official calls from the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to appear at an Oct. 11 hearing addressing allegations of regulatory influence. This is the first time the parliament has withdrawn a corporation’s parliamentary… Read more →
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is facing more than 5,000 lawsuits centering on the increased ovarian cancer-risk associated with the personal use of its talcum powder-based products. J&J has been aware for decades that talc particles can travel to women’s ovaries and cultivate cancer but failed to warn its customers. Documents recently unsealed during a pre-trial… Read more →
Internal Monsanto documents procured during pretrial discovery hold a wealth of evidence of the company’s ghost writing practices. These documents were discovered by The Miller Firm, which is representing plaintiffs who contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup® herbicide. The Miller Firm is co-lead counsel in the consolidated litigation against Monsanto on behalf of… Read more →
First California Trial Begins June 2018 The first trial addressing the carcinogenic properties of Monsanto’s Roundup® weed killer will begin June 18, 2018, in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. The Miller Firm will be the lead trial attorneys. The Miller Firm is also presently accepting new clients who developed non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma… Read more →
During the first few weeks of August 2017, testimony began in the California trial regarding the carcinogenic properties of Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) talcum powder-based products. Plaintiff Eva Echeverria testified about her five decades of talcum powder product use for feminine hygiene. The use of talc in this manner allows particles to travel to the… Read more →
In December 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a science advisory panel to carry out a peer-review of its finding that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer. The EPA’s report on this panel kept the scientists’ concerns about both glyphosate safety and the EPA review procedures vague. However, a recent Bloomberg expose looked deeper… Read more →