FREE CASE CONSULTATION
312-622-2900
Facebook-f Linkedin Google Instagram

Products Liability Attorney in Avondale

Let Carlson Bier Fight For You

Over $50 Million in Recoveries

5-Star Advanced Local Service Ads For Carlson Bier
Find Out if You Have a Case in 10 Seconds
Jeff Bier – Personal Injury Lawyer At Carlson Bier Associates
Personal Injury Lawyer Orland Park Illinois | Carlson Bier Associates

About Carlson Bier Associates

When it comes to product liability issues, Carlson Bier law firm stands unmatched in safeguarding the rights of their clients. With a powerful track record in Avondale and beyond, they excel at helping those affected by faulty products. Be it malfunctions or deceptive marketing practices; their team focuses relentlessly on seeing justice served. The lawyers’ extensive understanding of Illinois state laws ensures that each client’s needs are addressed with prime efficiency and profound expertise. Equipped with an unwavering dedication to procuring maximum compensation for damages suffered from defective products, Carlson Bier sets the bar high for legal representation standards across all spectrums of product liability cases. They pride themselves on being an exceptional ally; providing much-needed support through every stage of litigation while striving for outcomes that reflect fair restitution against negligent manufacturers or sellers – reinforcing public safety as paramount in consumer relations throughout Avondale area’s expansive merchandise landscape and beyond.

Meet Our Attorneys
About Carlson Bier

Products Liability Lawyers in Avondale Illinois

In your quest for justice, having a seasoned authority in the realm of personal injury law is imperative. Carlson Bier, an esteemed law firm based in Illinois, possesses extensive experience and profound knowledge in various dimensions of personal injury laws including Products Liability Law. When mishaps occur as a result of defective or hazardous products, we stand tall in defense of victims who have been dealt an unjust hand. Our goal pivots around advocating effectively for your rights and ensuring that you bag the best possible compensation.

To comprehend Products Liability better, it’s pivotal to emphasize that this legal domain emphasizes holding manufacturers accountable for injuries caused by their defected or dangerous products. These include appliances, medical equipment, automobiles, toys and even food items among others. The concerned party could be anyone interacting with these products – an end user/consumer or even bystander since each deserves fair recompense if the product acts against its intended reasonable safety standards.

Moving on to the core factors determining ‘product liability’, people often misconstrue it as one phenomenonal factor; however there are indeed three key angles: Manufacturing Defects (problems arising during the making phase), Design Defects (originate from inherent fault within product design lending them unsafe) and Warning Failures whereby customers are not accurately notified about dangers linked with normal use or foreseeable misuse.

• A substantial aspect tied down to Products Liability Cases is ‘Strict Liability’. This term might sound somewhat daunting but basically refers to situations where manufacturers are held liable for defects irrespective of care taken during manufacturing or warnings provided.

• ‘Negligence’ remains another pivotal consideration – if suppliers were negligent towards their duty causing harm via such provision then they can be held legally responsible.

• Likewise ‘Breach of warranty’ – sellers can bre violated facing consequences under contract law when they fail meeting up warranties defined at product sale time concerning safety standards & usability arenas which later leadto consumer injuries.

Carlson Bier actively handles such cases with an unparalleled finesse, refusing to back down until justice has been served. From gathering evidence of product defects to demonstrating manufacturers’ liability, our proficient lawyers vigilantly navigate the complex terrain of legal suits.

It’s quite common to ask where Carlson Bier operates since readers might be keen on finding this information. We’re based in Illinois but are always prepared for state-wise reach despite not having physical offices everywhere in the country per se. While you might ruminate “personal injury lawyer Avondale” on your search engine, we encourage you to refrain from doing so as it’s against Illinois law rather focus on expanding your horizons and consider assistance beyond local dimensions.

As we conclude, keep in mind that each case is unique; hence it demands individual evaluation by qualified professionals. Here at Carlson Bier, we grasp every single string unwaveringly while walking through Products Liability compensation journey alongside victims using a highly personalized approach paving their way towards required compensation claim rights deserved.

To proceed or gain additional insights concerning potential possibilities whirling around your case worthiness – click the button this instant! Dive into detailed analysis of how much can possibly be claimed rendering what scenarios have been faced. The knowledge gained could potentially give you newfound hope and clarify any existing ambiguities about legal action step forward. Remember – it’s about claiming what’s rightfully yours while ensuring adequate safety measures are compulsorily adopted reducing similar occurrences likelihood impacting society positively on a larger scale – with Carlson Bier by your side!

Find Out How Much Your Case is Worth
Testimonials from Clients

Your Success Is Our Success

Notable Illinois Appellate Wins

Moruzzi v. CCC Servs., Inc., 2020 IL App (2d) 190411, 171 N.E.3d 61
Background: Insured motorist filed action against insurer for declaratory judgment seeking construction of automobile insurance policy issued to insured and that was in effect when insured was injured by an underinsured driver. The Circuit Court, DuPage County, Bonnie M. Wheaton, J., granted the insurer's motions for summary judgment. Insured appealed.Holdings: The Appellate Court, Zenoff, J., held that:1 medical payments reduction clause in automobile insurance policy conflicted with underinsured motorist provisions so as to render reduction clause ambiguous, and thus medical payment benefits were deductible from insured's damages;2 law firm representing insured did not create common fund or common funds when it reached settlement with underinsured motorist, and thus law firm was not entitled to recover fees under common-fund doctrine; and3 collateral estoppel did not bar automobile insurers from litigating whether common-fund doctrine applied in insured motorist's declaratory judgment action.Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Maier v. CC Servs., Inc., 2019 IL App (3d) 170640, 132 N.E.3d 795
Background: After insured, who was injured in automobile collision with another driver, recovered full liability limits of driver's policy, she filed amended complaint for declaratory judgment against her own automobile insurer, alleging that insurer breached contractual duty to pay for insured's damages in accordance with uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in insured's policy and that insurer acted in bad faith in denying insured such coverage. The Circuit Court, La Salle County, Troy D. Holland, J., granted the insurer's motion to dismiss claims as time-barred. Insured appealed.The Appellate Court ruled that neither the insurer nor the insured could add amended policy provisions to the court record. It was decided that the policy's requirement for a written arbitration demand applied to both uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. The court found that a letter from the insured's attorney to the insurer wasn't a valid arbitration demand nor a proof of loss to toll the statute of limitations. Finally, the insurer was permitted to use the defense based on the two-year statute of limitations period. The court's decision was affirmed.
Econ. Premier Assurance Co. v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 IL App (1st) 192364-U
Holding: The circuit court's order that granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was proper where defendant had no duty to indemnify its insured with respect to the underlying complaint and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to recover against defendant on its subrogation or unjust enrichment claims; affirmed.
Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Westerheide, 2023 IL App (5th) 220343-U
Holding: The court affirmed judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff where the defendant failed to make a written demand for arbitration within two years from the date of the accident as required by the underinsured provisions of the defendant's automotive insurance policy.
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Olsak, 2022 IL App (1st) 200695, 216 N.E.3d 291
In a complex legal case, an insurer sought to avoid defending or indemnifying a hockey player under a policy issued to the player's stepfather after the player was sued for assaulting his coach. The initial Circuit Court ruling favored the insurer, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision, leading to a protracted legal battle. Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined the insurer was liable only up to the $3 million policy limit and found the insurer's four-year delay in seeking a declaratory judgment to be reasonable. This case highlights important aspects of insurance litigation and policy limit liabilities.
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Durkin Elec. Co., Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 210293-U, appeal denied, 199 N.E.3d 1187 (Ill. 2022)
Holding: The circuit court's order that denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and found that defendant was an additional insured under the policy was proper. The circuit court's order that denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and found that plaintiff did not have a duty to defend or indemnify defendant under the policy was proper; affirmed.
Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Groen, 2017 IL App (4th) 160028, 69 N.E.3d 911
Background: Uninsured motorist (UM) carrier brought action against insured for declaratory judgment that it owed no benefits since workers' compensation received by insured exceeded policy limits. The Circuit Court, Sangamon County, Chris Perrin, J., entered summary judgment in favor of the carrier. Insured appealed.Holdings: The Appellate Court, Harris, J., held that:1 employer's medical payments entitled carrier to setoff, and2 setoff clauses were enforceable.Affirmed.
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Frobish, 2021 IL App (3d) 190473-U
Holding: Allegations in the underlying complaint that a township employee caused property damage by excavating and digging out a ditch failed to impose a duty to defend under township employee's individual farm insurance policy.
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 2018 IL App (1st) 173154-U
Holding: The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed; plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured against the underlying complaint because the loss claimed in the underlying complaint is subject to an exclusion. The court held that it would also enter judgment for plaintiff because the underlying complaint does not allege an “occurrence” causing bodily injury within the meaning of the policy.
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schmitt, 2021 IL App (5th) 190173-U
Holding: The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment of the circuit court where plaintiff had no duty to defend its insured and thus was not stopped from raising policy defenses to coverage for the underlying tort action contained in the amended declaratory action.
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Livorsi Marine, Inc., 222 Ill. 2d 303, 856 N.E.2d 338 (2006) (the late Keith Carlson)
Liability insurer brought action against insureds for a declaratory judgment based on failure to provide timely notice of lawsuits against them. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Stephen A. Schiller, J., entered judgment for the insurer. Insureds appealed. The Appellate Court, Wolfson, J., 358 Ill.App.3d 880, 295 Ill.Dec. 665, 833 N.E.2d 871, affirmed. Leave to appeal was granted.Holdings: The Supreme Court, Garman, J., held that:1 if the insurer did not receive reasonable notice of an occurrence or a lawsuit, the policyholder may not recover under the policy, regardless of whether the lack of reasonable notice prejudiced the insurer, overruling Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill.App.3d 801, 229 Ill.Dec. 20, 690 N.E.2d 1067, and Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Baur's Opera House, Inc., 296 Ill.App.3d 1011, 230 Ill.Dec. 624, 694 N.E.2d 593, and2 insured did not need to prove that it was prejudiced by delayed notice of lawsuits.Affirmed.
Education & Information

Resources For Avondale Residents

Links

Legal Associations and Lawyer Services

Online Legal Resources and Directories

Specialized Services and Educational Resources

Legal Blogs
SEE MORE

Frequently Asked Questions

Product Liability FAQ​

Product liability is the legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and suppliers for injuries caused by defective products.

The three main types of product liability claims are:

  • Manufacturing defects: These defects occur during the manufacturing process and cause the product to be unsafe.
  • Design defects: These defects exist in the design of the product and make it inherently unsafe.
  • Marketing defects: These defects occur when the manufacturer or seller fails to adequately warn consumers about the dangers of the product.

The signs and symptoms of a product liability injury can vary depending on the type of product that caused the injury. However, some common signs and symptoms include:

  • Physical injuries: These could include cuts, bruises, burns, fractures, and other injuries.
  • Property damage: This could include damage to your home, car, or other belongings.
  • Economic losses: These could include lost wages, medical expenses, and other financial losses.

The treatment options for product liability injuries will vary depending on the severity of the injuries. However, some common treatment options include:

  • Surgery: Surgery may be required to repair injuries that were caused by a defective product.
  • Physical therapy: Physical therapy may be required to help patients regain their strength and mobility after suffering an injury.
  • Occupational therapy: Occupational therapy may be required to help patients learn to perform activities of daily living after suffering an injury.
  • Medications: Medications may be required to treat pain and other symptoms of product liability injuries.

Yes, you may be able to file a lawsuit for a product liability injury if you have been injured due to a defective product. A product liability lawyer can help you understand your rights and options, and can represent you in court if necessary.

All Attorney Services in Avondale

Areas of Practice in Avondale

Cycling Crashes

Dedicated to legal services for individuals injured in bicycle accidents due to responsible parties' lack of care or hazardous conditions.

Scald Wounds

Providing skilled legal support for sufferers of serious burn injuries caused by incidents or negligence.

Physician Carelessness

Providing professional legal services for patients affected by clinical malpractice, including misdiagnosis.

Products Liability

Taking on cases involving unsafe products, extending skilled legal help to clients affected by faulty goods.

Aged Malpractice

Protecting the rights of seniors who have been subjected to malpractice in care facilities environments, ensuring protection.

Fall and Stumble Mishaps

Specialist in handling trip accident cases, providing legal support to sufferers seeking compensation for their injuries.

Infant Wounds

Supplying legal aid for kin affected by medical incompetence resulting in infant injuries.

Automobile Collisions

Mishaps: Devoted to guiding sufferers of car accidents obtain just remuneration for hurts and impairment.

Scooter Collisions

Focused on providing legal assistance for victims involved in two-wheeler accidents, ensuring just recovery for injuries.

18-Wheeler Accident

Offering experienced legal representation for persons involved in truck accidents, focusing on securing rightful settlement for injuries.

Worksite Collisions

Concentrated on defending workmen or bystanders injured in construction site accidents due to recklessness or carelessness.

Head Harms

Expert in delivering compassionate legal services for individuals suffering from cerebral injuries due to negligence.

Dog Bite Harms

Expertise in addressing cases for individuals who have suffered harms from canine attacks or animal assaults.

Pedestrian Collisions

Committed to legal assistance for cross-walkers involved in accidents, providing dedicated assistance for recovering compensation.

Wrongful Demise

Working for families affected by a wrongful death, providing compassionate and skilled legal representation to ensure compensation.

Spinal Cord Damage

Focused on advocating for clients with spine impairments, offering specialized legal guidance to secure justice.

Instant Case Evaluation

Contact Us Today if you need a Person Injury Lawyer

312-313-2440