The Chicago Tribune reports that a Colorado resident has won a $7.2 million judgment against a Central Illinois microwavable popcorn manufacturer and distributors of the product. This product liability action resembles the litigation over mesothelioma due to asbestos from the 1960s and on. In this case, the chemical in the fake butter in microwavable popcorn has led to a serious lung issue in one user who consumed massive quantities of the product.
The issue revolves around whether Kroger Co., through its subsidiary Scoopers supermarket, and Gilster-Mary Lee Corp., the Chester, Ill., private-labeling manufacturer of the popcorn, are liable for negligence for failing to warn consumers about the danger of diacetyl, the butter flavoring used in their microwavable popcorn.
Apparently, the prior victims of this chemical, like asbestos, were employees of manufacturers of chemical because they were exposed to large quantities on their jobs. However, also like asbestos, the issues were not confined to the employees but also some consumers downwind.
The plaintiff in this case, a resident of Colorado, was diagnosed with lung issues, according to his expert, came from diacetyl exposure preivously only associated with its manufacture. Since the Plaintiff consumed, by his own admission, daily and in large quantities, the expert witness saw a correlation. The jury agreed and awarded him over $7 million in damages. It assigned, through comparative negligence, 80% of the damages to the IL manufacturer and 20% to the retailer, Kroger Co.
Product liability cases often hinge on proving that the manufacturer or seller had a duty to warn about a known or foreseeable risk. The warning must be conspicuous and adequately warn users of the category and type of harm. Manufacturers and retailers can innoculate themselves against this risk by satisfying their duty through written, pictorial, or other means that satisfy the rest that prominent, clear warnings.
Design defects, manufacturing defects, and other product liability actions have different elements and standards. This failure to warn case revolved primarily around whether the risk existed and whether there was causation between the plaintiff's lung condition and the chemical present in the butter flavoring. For more information about product liability actions, please contact an attorney. This case should stand as a testament to everyone that product liability actions can result from even the most common of household items.
Apparently, the prior victims of this chemical, like asbestos, were employees of manufacturers of chemical because they were exposed to large quantities on their jobs. However, also like asbestos, the issues were not confined to the employees but also some consumers downwind.
The plaintiff in this case, a resident of Colorado, was diagnosed with lung issues, according to his expert, came from diacetyl exposure preivously only associated with its manufacture. Since the Plaintiff consumed, by his own admission, daily and in large quantities, the expert witness saw a correlation. The jury agreed and awarded him over $7 million in damages. It assigned, through comparative negligence, 80% of the damages to the IL manufacturer and 20% to the retailer, Kroger Co.
Product liability cases often hinge on proving that the manufacturer or seller had a duty to warn about a known or foreseeable risk. The warning must be conspicuous and adequately warn users of the category and type of harm. Manufacturers and retailers can innoculate themselves against this risk by satisfying their duty through written, pictorial, or other means that satisfy the rest that prominent, clear warnings.
Design defects, manufacturing defects, and other product liability actions have different elements and standards. This failure to warn case revolved primarily around whether the risk existed and whether there was causation between the plaintiff's lung condition and the chemical present in the butter flavoring. For more information about product liability actions, please contact an attorney. This case should stand as a testament to everyone that product liability actions can result from even the most common of household items.
RSS Feed