Duke University's star freshman basketball player, Zion Williamson, suffered a knee injury during a game between Duke and North Carolina. The injury seemed to occur when his Nike shoe appeared to tear as he planted his foot. Williamson, thought by many to be a top NBA draft pick, left the game and did not return. This begs the question: if Williamson suffered a career ending injury, could Williamson sue Nike?
The widow of a Union Pacific Railroad engineer who died in a train collision last October filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the company after an apparent mechanical brake malfunction. On the day of the incident, engineer Jason Martinez's train was heading east to North Platte, Nebraska, when the train's crew realized the brakes were malfunctioning. The crew alerted Union Pacific Railroad dispatch center and informed them that the train had accelerated to 50 mph and was unable to stop. The train ultimately collided with another train that was stopped on the tracks about 18 miles west of Cheyenne, Wyoming. No one was in the stopped train at the time of collision.
A 24-year-old Fort Worth man tragically died in a vape store parking lot this January after his vape pen exploded in his face. After the explosion, the man was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he later died.
On February 13, 2019, a Texas jury returned a $37.6 million verdict against Honda, finding that the seat belt system in a Honda minivan had a design defect that left a woman paralyzed after the vehicle was involved in a rollover crash.
In February of 2017, Bradley Ireland, then 64 years-old, suffered severe injuries after his apartment caught fire. He died later that day. Julia Ireland Meo, Mr. Ireland's daughter, has sued Apple and alleged that the fire started due to a faulty battery pack in an iPad. According to the suit, "The fire was caused by a defect in the subject tablet, specifically affecting the tablet's battery pack." The fire started in Mr. Bradley's kitchen.
A Missouri federal judge recently held that the retailer and the importer of a vintage rifle could not escape a products liability lawsuit filed by an experienced hunter, who sustained serious injuries, when a vintage rifle that he purchased exploded in his face after firing two rounds through it.
On February 1, 2019, a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $41 million to a Pennsylvania couple after the woman was injured by vaginal mesh. The woman, Suzanne Emmett, was implanted with the mesh in early 2007. Not long after, Emmett began experiencing complications with the mesh, when it began eroding through her soft tissues. She experienced discomfort, bleeding, infections, painful sex, and other symptoms. Despite having nine surgeries, in an attempt to correct the problems, Emmett continues to suffer from scarring and other permanent problems to this day.
Johnson & Johnson lost a motion seeking to overturn a jury verdict in excess of $4 billion. The jury found that Johnson & Johnson was to blame for ovarian cancer of 22 women who sued the company. The cases centered around talc powder manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. The lawsuits allege that the company's baby powder and other talc powder products were contaminated with asbestos particles that can cause cancer.
Deputy Herman Sanders was injured on the morning of March 1, 2017 when his handgun exploded. On December 31, 2018, Harris County filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers and sellers of the gun, Glock Inc., and also against the manufacturers and sellers of the ammunition, Olin Corporation, for negligence, and breach of warranty, among other causes of action.
A Missouri judge has recently upheld the award of 4.7 billion dollars in damages to twenty-two victims of ovarian cancer against Johnson & Johnson. This case stems from Johnson & Johnson having produced talc powder for decades, encouraging its use in women and children, all the while knowing of its contamination with asbestos. Company communications reveal both Johnson & Johnson's knowledge of the contamination, and of the health threats posed by asbestos. Citing the "reprehensible conduct" of the manufacturer, the judge upheld the judgment as being supported by the evidence adduced at trial.