Serious burn injuries and home and commercial kitchen explosions have been reported across the country, leading to permanent injury and product liability lawsuits.
Conagra has denied that their PAM cooking spray is defective, however, with dozens of burn injury cases pending, the company has decided to change the design of their cooking spray can. PAM cooking spray and other cooking sprays, known as canned aerosol kitchen products, are common in home and in commercial kitchens.
But for years consumers have been in the dark about what is actually contained in PAM cooking spray cans. The “100% natural” claims have been called misleading by some safety advocates, as some PAM contains propellants that include isobutene and propane.
After consumer health and safety concerns have been brought to light, and fire-related accidents reported in kitchens, lawsuits have been filed across the country, targeting Sysco and ConAgra, the maker of Wellsley Farms and PAM cooking spray.
Consumer safety attorneys, involved in litigation on the behalf of injured victims, allege PAM constitutes a danger in the home and in commercial kitchens. In March 2016, ConAgra Foods Inc. was made aware of a pending lawsuit filed against the food company by a chef who suffered serious burn injuries after a cooking spray can exploded in the kitchen.
The victim suffered severe burn injuries over a large portion of her body, and the burns have left her with disfigurement and scarring. ConAgra Foods has long marketed PAM as “natural” and as safe for its intended use, which has been proven false in recent years. If you have been injured in the kitchen by a cooking spray product, contact an experienced attorney to investigate the cause, and to recover compensation.
Joe Lyon is a highly-rated Ohio personal injury lawyer representing plaintiffs nationwide in a wide variety of consumer product liability claims following Sysco, Wellsley Farms, and PAM cooking spray explosions.
Pam Cooking Spray Explosions
Imagine you are in your kitchen, cooking dinner like any other night, when suddenly an explosion rips through the room. You are set on fire and you are severely burned. What happened? The PAM cooking spray you have used for many years just exploded, sending flames throughout the kitchen, setting you on fire.
Unfortunately, this is a real story for dozens of consumers. PAM cooking spray explosions continue to be reported, even years after the first accident. Burn injuries are reported, and product liability lawsuits have been filed. Most recently, a New York woman was almost killed when a can of PAM cooking spray overheated and blew up in her kitchen. The woman nearly burned to death, and was only spared because the fire did not hit her directly in the face.
Nevertheless, the New York woman and several others have been victims of cooking spray accidents, allegedly involving not only PAM cans but canisters of Sysco and Wellsley Farms products. Pam accident victims may be faced with severely painful recoveries, permanent injury and scarring, and emotional distress.
Following PAM cooking spray accidents, injured plaintiffs are encouraged to contact an experienced consumer safety attorney and product liability lawyer. The right legal counsel can recover rightful compensation and hold the responsible parties accountable (ConAgra) for negligent consumer safety hazards.
Joe Lyon is a Cincinnati, Ohio consumer protection lawyer and product liability attorney representing injured plaintiffs nationwide in PAM cooking spray burn injury accidents.
The Lyon Firm specializes in consumer safety litigation and has experience engaging large corporations following injuries and accidents.
Cooking Spray Accidents & PAM Explosion Lawsuits
The 37-year-old New York woman mentioned above suffered second and third-degree burn injuries to 30 percent of her body. The PAM can she used sat near the stove before it burst into flames. Similar cooking spray accidents have been reported across the country.
The Lyon Firm and other consumer safety plaintiffs argue that Conagra, the maker of PAM cooking spray, has failed to sufficiently warn consumers of such safety hazards, and has also failed to properly design a cooking spray to withstand normal heat present in almost every kitchen.
Joe Lyon and plaintiffs aim to recover burn accident and to warn consumers about the potential fire and burn dangers of Sysco, Wellsley Farms and PAM cooking sprays.
Safety experts can determine the root cause of an explosion and determine whether or not PAM cooking spray cans are unsafe. Conagra has decided to change the design of their canisters, though still denies that the old or new design is dangerous. Conagra argues that if used as intended, their cooking spray is safe for use in the kitchen.
PAM Can Defects & Cooking Spray Accidents
Cooking spray products like PAM are pressurized and contain flammable petroleum propellants like isobutane or propane. Isobutane and propane are colorless and odorless compressed gases that are derived from petroleum and natural gas.
Defective bottles and cans of cooking spray can very easily overheat, have been known to explode and cause fires and burn injuries, even at a distance of up to two feet from a heat source. Consumer reports include cans of cooking spray falling into fryers or burners and igniting, creating fire hazards that pose a serious risk to consumers.
Victims of cooking spray injuries do not always consider the risks of a defective product because of a lack of visible warnings. The stories from burn victims sound eerily similar: they are cooking like any of day when the next they know, they are set aflame by a fireball sent throughout the kitchen by a large explosion.
PAM cans are inevitably meant to be used in the kitchen, though Conagra argues that consumers are misusing the product and placing the product too close to the stoves, grills and open heat sources. Plaintiffs and consumer safety attorneys say aside from the faulty PAM can design, the company has failed to properly warn consumers of the potential fire and burn accident risks.
Diacetyl has also been found in many cooking spray products. Studies have shown that exposure to diacetyl, a flavoring added to cooking sprays, can increase the risk of lung disease. Long-term or repeated exposure to diacetyl can cause serious respiratory disease. Sysco and Wellsley Farms are also been targeted in PAM can and cooking spray explosion cases.
PAM Explosion Injury Cases
Several PAM cooking spray explosions have been reported to consumer safety officials and consumer safety litigation aims to remove any unsafe cooking spray products from the market. Despite the recent legal action taken against food companies, some cooking sprays may still may contain hazardous flammable chemicals.
PAM cans and other cooking sprays contain chemicals found in other propellant products, posing health and fire safety risks. Dangerous ingredients may include:
Liquefied petroleum gas
PAM Can Accidents
Cooking accidents cause the majority of residential and restaurant fires. Flammable cooking sprays and other dangerous kitchen products elevate the risk of injury and death, and companies who sell and distribute the products must be held accountable. It is important to know the risks of cooking sprays to ensure safe workplaces and homes.
As early as 2014, lawyers identified harmful chemicals like isobutane and propane in the “propellant” of PAM and consequently filed a false advertising class action lawsuit against ConAgra Foods in federal court.
The complaint alleges that the food giant falsely labeled PAM cooking sprays as “100% Natural” when they clearly contain harmful artificial and synthetic ingredients. Lawsuits involving fire and burn accidents involving Sysco and Wellsley Farms have also been filed.
Consumers have not been properly warned of the serious risks to their health. In August 2017, a New Jersey woman suffered second and third-degree burns when a can of cooking spray near a burner exploded. More recently, a New York woman was hospitalized for a month after a can of Conagra’s Wellsley Farms cooking spray ignited and exploded in her kitchen. The woman survived, but like many others she faces severe scarring, nerve damage and emotional distress.
Ohio Consumer Burn Injury lawyer and product liability attorney reviewing Conagra’s PAM can defects and cooking spray lawsuits following cooking spray accidents.
Consumer Protection Attorneys are proud to make kitchens safer by promoting safe products, and holding companies liable for the dangerous products they release to the public.
PAM Cooking Spray Lawsuits
Consumers risk serious kitchen burn injuries when cooking spray cans explode. Consumer protection attorneys and plaintiffs have argued in cooking spray lawsuits that the vent design on PAM cans is potentially faulty and that the company has failed to warn consumers of the fire and burn injury risks linked to its kitchen product.
Conagra has released statements regarding the pending cooking spray lawsuits, and stated that their products are safe if used as intended. The company places the safety burden on consumers.
But numerous reports and filed cooking spray lawsuits suggest perhaps PAM cooking spray is more dangerous than previously thought. Kitchen burn injury cases have been piling up nationwide as PAM can explosions cause severe third-degree burns and life-threatening accidents.
Joe Lyon is a Cincinnati, Ohio consumer protection lawyer and product liability attorney investigating the root cause of cooking spray explosion accidents for burn injury plaintiffs nationwide.
Cooking Spray Burn Injury
Cooking spray accidents can be quite serious a many victims have attested to. Plaintiffs filing defective cooking spray lawsuits with the assistance of product liability and personal injury lawyers have described their kitchens as infernos after the cans exploded. When the cans ignite, containing butane and other flammable products, the flame can set people on fire, head to foot.
Victims of kitchen accidents have similar reports: the canisters were resting above or nearby a stove before an explosion took place.
Conagra has denied wrongdoing and has not issued any recall for their products, though they have redesigned their PAM cooking spray cans—with no mention of feeling legal pressure. For a product meant to be used in the kitchen, plaintiffs and consumer safety lawyers argue that the company has a duty to provide a safer product. Other cooking spray lawsuits include Conagra’s Wellsley Farms cooking spray.
Cooking Spray Accidents
At least one video has been released of a live PAM cooking spray accident. Kitchen product explosions can be serious and deadly, and safety advocates and plaintiffs aim to protect consumers by holding Conagra and Sysco responsible for their allegedly dangerous products Cooking spray accidents may be able to recover damages related to pain and suffering, medical expenses, permanent disability and punitive damages.
The Lyon Firm specializes in consumer safety litigation and has experience engaging large corporations following burn injuries and kitchen accidents. Contact the Lyon Firm for a free consultation.
The Lyon Firm is dedicated to consumer safety and filing product liability and personal injury claims on behalf of injured plaintiffs in cooking spray explosions to recover rightful compensation and ensure the safety of consumers in the future.
Can I File a Cooking Spray Lawsuit?
Plaintiffs should contact The Lyon Firm or another consumer safety attorney regarding any dangerous kitchen accident or a cooking spray accident that results in serious burn injury.
The Lyon has the resources and industry contacts to build the strongest case possible against companies responsible for producing and selling hazardous consumer products.
If you have been injured in a kitchen burn accident, it is likely that you will be entitled to a settlement and compensation for medical costs, pain and suffering, and other damages.
ABOUT THE LYON FIRM
Joseph Lyon has 17 years of experience representing individuals in complex litigation matters. He has represented individuals in every state against many of the largest companies in the world.
The Firm focuses on single-event civil cases and class actions involving corporate neglect & fraud, toxic exposure, product defects & recalls, medical malpractice, and invasion of privacy.
NO COST UNLESS WE WIN
The Firm offers contingency fees, advancing all costs of the litigation, and accepting the full financial risk, allowing our clients full access to the legal system while reducing the financial stress while they focus on their healthcare and financial needs.
A Voice for Those who have suffered
Why are these cases important?
Many product liability cases have had a positive impact on public health and safety, and we have witnessed improved lives and future injuries prevented as companies are forced to remove products and change designs and warnings as a result of litigation.
Product liability lawsuits often contain causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Strict liability applies to different factors than negligence-based claims.
In negligence cases, the actions of the defendant are the focus. In strict liability claims, the focus is on the condition of a product at the time it left the manufacturer. If a product is determined to be defective, the company is liable for any foreseeable injuries that are in-part caused by the defective condition of the product.
A product is defective if it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. A legal cause of action can be based on several types of product defects. The following are Cincinnati product liability and strict liability claims available in Ohio and in most jurisdictions nationwide:
(1) Manufacturing/ Construction Defect:
These issues arise where the product is released from the factory in a manner that deviates from the intended design or specifications. The defect can be a result of using the wrong materials, including the wrong or completely foreign materials (e.g., Tylenol contamination, food poisoning, damaged car part from factory installation).
As a result of the deviation, the product enters the market in an unreasonably dangerous condition and the consumer is exposed to or purchases a product that is defective. Any personal injuries or economic loss that arise from the the defect are compensable under Ohio product liability law.
(2) Defective design and/or formulation:
Defective design product liability cases arise not because a mistake was made during the manufacturing process, but rather the original design of the product is unreasonably dangerous. A “risk benefit analysis” is used to determine whether safer/less expensive alternative designs were available to the manufacturer.
Federal regulations set minimum standards for the design of many consumer products, and preemption defenses may preclude liability in some situations if the manufacturer follows and obtains federal approval for a product.
Conagra says the product is completely safe if used as intended, but due to cans exploding in kitchens across America, consumer safety advocates warn consumers there could be a serious safety risk. Contact an attorney to investigate.
Absolutely. There are warnings about the fire and burn hazards on the can, but consumer safety attorneys have argued the company has still not protected consumers from the serious burn injury and kitchen fire accident hazards that exist.
Risks: The following factors are considered under Ohio law when determining the risks associated with the design of a product: (1) the magnitude of the risk of injury; (2) ordinary consumer awareness of the risk for injury; (3) the likelihood of causing injury; (4) the violation of a private or public standard; and (5) the consumer’s expectation of the performance of the product and level of danger. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (B) Product Defective in Design or Formulation.
Benefits: The following factors are considered under Ohio law when determining the benefits associated with product design: (1) the utility of the product; (2) availability of an alternative design; (3) the magnitude of risks associated with an alternative design. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (c)
Defenses for Defective Design: (1) a pharmaceutical drug or medical device is not defective by design if it contains an adequate warning of an unavoidably unsafe aspect of the pharmaceutical or medical device; (2) the dangerous aspect is inherent to the product, recognizable, and cannot be eliminated without compromising the product’s usefulness; (3) a lack of a feasible alternative design.
Conagra claims the product is 100 percent safe for use, however, due to burn risks and the number of chemicals in the canister, some experts warn the product may present a serious consumer safety risk.
Discovering a Product Defect:
Secure the product;
Obtain a complete history from the client and any witnesses on the purchase, use and incident with the product
Obtain all incident or accident reports and photographs;
Obtain medical records of admission, EMS and first four days of hospital admission;
Obtain any government agency via FOIA requests;
Research any other similar incidents including lawsuits;
Research any active recalls;
Research any nuanced areas of law that the facts reveal;
Consult with appropriate experts;
Determine whether case merits filing a lawsuit
Perform any product inspection or testing with appropriate protocols in place.