Articles Posted in Products Liability

Whether it’s a busy weeknight or a lazy weekend, frozen food items are an occasional must-have in any household. What happens, however, when your favorite frozen meal or snack contains extraneous objects, like plastic or glass? Even worse, what if that plastic or glass in your food injures you? Although this may seem uncommon, the company that produced the food item that causes an injury may face a Georgia product liability claim in the event its defective product hits the grocery shelves and goes home with unknowing consumers.

According to a recent news report, certain pepperoni Hot Pockets have been recalled because pieces of glass and hard plastic were found by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. The recall applied to 54-ounce 12 packs of pepperoni Hot Pockets with a “best by” date of February 2022. According to federal officials, the Hot Pockets were part of a Class I recall, which involves a “health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.” Since the product has been recalled, there have been four consumer complaints of contamination, one of which involved a minor oral injury.

In Georgia, there are specific laws that govern what happens when you are injured by a defective product. To ensure that you are eligible to receive financial compensation for your injuries, potential plaintiffs are advised to hire an experienced Georgia personal injury attorney who can help them navigate the legal system and its procedures with ease.

In March 2019, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Georgia personal injury case discussing the element of causation, as well as the type and quantity of evidence that a plaintiff must present to survive a defense motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence showing that the defendant’s actions caused her injuries. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a homeowner who hired the defendant to install a smoke detector system in her home. In the months after the installation, the plaintiff called the defendant several times because the system was not working. The last time the defendant was at the plaintiff’s home was November 2007.

In August 2008, the plaintiff was cooking on the stove when she went to lie on the couch. The plaintiff inadvertently nodded off, and after an estimated three or four minutes, she woke up to the smell of smoke. The plaintiff went into the kitchen, but because of the smoke, she was unsure whether the source of the smoke was the pan or the chicken that she was cooking. As the plaintiff turned the stove knob to the off position, she poured flour into the pan, in an attempt to smother the flame. The contents of the pan bubbled over onto her hand, causing serious burns. The smoke detector did not sound an alarm, and it was later determined that the smoke detector did not have a required piece installed.

In a recent Georgia food poisoning case, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s case. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss the appropriate burden a plaintiff bringing a food-poisoning case has at the summary judgment stage. Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower courts imposed too high a burden on the plaintiffs’ case when they required the plaintiffs to make “every other reasonable hypothesis regarding the cause of their illness.”

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were two wedding guests who became violently ill several days after consuming food prepared by the defendant caterer at the wedding rehearsal dinner. The plaintiffs filed a Georgia products liability case against the caterer, claiming that the food was “defective, pathogen-contaminated, undercooked, and negligently prepared.”

The defendant caterer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because they did not present sufficient evidence that the defendant’s food caused their illness. In support of its motion, the defendant caterer made the following arguments:

Continue reading ›

In personal injury cases, before a case reaches trial, the parties engage in the discovery process. Discovery is the stage of litigation at which the parties exchange requested information that is relevant to the case or may lead to the discovery of other relevant evidence.The rules of discovery require that parties make certain evidence available for the opposing side, even if that evidence is not favorable to the party that possesses the evidence. Along those lines, the rules prohibit the destruction of discoverable evidence. A recent Georgia personal injury case takes a look at when a plaintiff’s obligation to preserve evidence arises.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a man who was involved in a serious car accident after the tread on one of his vehicle’s tires separated. After the accident, the plaintiff’s husband was taken to the hospital, where he remained unresponsive for several days.

Continue reading ›