Ohio Product Liability Lawyer reviewing cases and lawsuits for injured clients and plaintiffs nationwide
Nationwide Success

Recover from Your Injuries

Spread Awareness for Faulty Products

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 misleading, 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.


Cooking Spray Explosion Risks

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, 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 spray.

Safety experts can determine the root cause of an explosion and determine whether or not PAM cooking spray cans are defective. 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 defective 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 defect and cooking spray explosion cases.

PAM Cooking Spray Explosions

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 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:

  • Isobutane
  • Ethyl alcohol
  • Liquefied petroleum gas
  • Carbon dioxide
  • Butane
  • Propane
  • Dimethyl silicone
  • Diacetyl

PAM Cooking Spray 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

Due to a potentially defective design of the Conagra PAM cooking spray cans, consumers risk serious kitchen burn injuries when the cans explode. Consumer protection attorneys and plaintiffs have argued in cooking spray lawsuits that the vent design on PAM cans is 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. Such negligent corporate behavior, of placing profit before consumer safety, is what The Lyon Firm aims to target in PAM burn injury lawsuits.

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.

PAM Burn Injury & Cooking Spray Lawsuits

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 PAM 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.

PAM Cooking Spray Explosion 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 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 at (800) 513-2403 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.

photo of attorney Joe Lyon
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.

Give Yourself a Voice


Get Justice

Gain Recovery

Generate Awareness

Questions about Product Liability & Case Types

What is a Product Liability Lawsuit?

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.

How is a Product Defined as Defective?
Ohio Definition of Defective

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. Automotive recalls and product liability cases are usually a result of a defective design. Common cases include the Toyota Brake Recall, Chrysler Gen III seat belt buckle, lap belt only cases, Metal on Metal hip implants, transvaginal mesh.)

(3) Failure to warn or inadequate warning or instruction associated with the product:

All consumer products come with necessary and appropriate warnings and instructions for use. If the lack of a warning makes the product and use of the product unsafe, the manufacturer is liable for the failure to place the warning. The most common area of litigation for failure to warn is in pharmaceutical litigation.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to warn of the known or foreseeable side effects and update the warnings in a timely manner. Litigation arises where there is evidence the manufacturer failed to timely update a warning in light of new data or simply ignored the risk and failed to conduct sufficient research to identify and then disclose the risk.

(4) Misrepresentation:

The product fails to conform to a representation or warranty. Warranty claims are more common in commercial and economic loss cases than in personal injury cases. In many States, The Product Liability Act does not apply to cases with only economic loss, because the Commercial Code provides recourse for breach of warranty.

The warranty may be written or implied based upon the products intended purpose and merchantability. An example of a breach of warranty cases are cases involving automotive defects.

How do you prove design defects?

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.

BenefitsThe 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. 2307.75 (d)(e)(f).


What is a manufacturing defect?
  • A manufacturing defect is based on a defect that occurred during the manufacturing process. Many auto companies have been involved in this kind of product liability lawsuits in recent years, due to defective airbags, software defects, tire failure, and other dangerous manufacturing errors.

    Most manufacturing defect cases are based on a products deviation from the intended specification, formula, performance standards, or design model. In such cases, it may be easy to determine the product did not comply with the intended design.

    The product may be recalled as a specific lot is identified as being non-compliant and defective. A product may be defective in manufacture or construction, materials and assembly, and a manufacturer or distributor may be subject to strict liability, even though it exercised all possible care.  Ohio Revised Code 2307.74.

    Manufacturing Defect Examples:

What is a failure to warn lawsuit?

In determining whether a product is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction, evidence must be presented to prove:

  • The manufacturer knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about a risk
  • A reasonable manufacturer would have provided a warning of the risk
  • The manufacturer failed to provide the warning
  • The person was injured due to a lack of warning. The same elements apply whether the claim is based on a warning present during the marketing or post-sale warnings.

Defenses to Failure to Warn Claims(1) the risk was open and obvious or a matter of common knowledge; and (2) in cases of a pharmaceutical drug or medical device, the warning was provided to the prescribing physician (“Learned Intermediary Doctrine”).

Many pharmaceutical companies have been targeted in failure to warn lawsuits for either failing to place warnings on medication guides and packaging or failing to properly test their product before putting it to market.


Why should I hire The Lyon Firm?

The Lyon Firm is dedicated to making America a safer place for consumers by holding negligent companies accountable for defective products produced and sold to the public. When injuries and accidents occur due to an unsafe or inferior product, you can come forward and contact an experienced Ohio product liability lawyer to take legal action.

. The Lyon Firm has the resources to build strong product liability lawsuits with the help of industry experts and a history of engaging large American corporations in settlements.

Joe Lyon is a Cincinnati Catastrophic Injury and Ohio Product Liability Lawyer. If you or a loved one has suffered an injury due to a defective product or recalled product and have questions about the root cause and the legal remedies available to improve quality of life and medical care in Ohio, contact The Lyon Firm at 800.513.2403. You will speak directly with Mr. Lyon, and he will help you answer these critical questions.

What are consumer product safety regulations?

Design and manufacturing defects result in thousands of product recalls each year in the United States, initiated by federal safety agencies. Following injury and illness, regardless of recall status, victims and plaintiffs may pursue legal action and contact a product liability lawyer to begin the litigation process. Rightful compensation can be sought and help plaintiffs recover medical costs and other related damages.

Product liability law overlaps with regulatory law, which are the systems of legislative rules and administrative agencies, and part of federal and state governments. These agencies regulate the safety of the products sold to the public. Examples include:

  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  • The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA;)
  • The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

The listed government agencies, however, may initiate recalls of dangerous products but do not provide remedies or compensation for damages where an individual is injured due to the defective product.

Discovering a Product Defect: Initial Steps


  1. Secure the product;
  2. Obtain a complete history from the client and any witnesses on the purchase, use and incident with the product
  3. Obtain all incident or accident reports and photographs;
  4. Obtain medical records of admission, EMS and first four days of hospital admission;
  5. Obtain any government agency via FOIA requests;
  6. Research any other similar incidents including lawsuits;
  7. Research any active recalls;
  8. Research any nuanced areas of law that the facts reveal;
  9. Consult with appropriate experts;
  10. Determine whether case merits filing a lawsuit
  11. Perform any product inspection or testing with appropriate protocols in place. 

Our Victories

The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a defective product or recalled product to obtain just compensation under the law.



(Pikeville, Kentucky): Confidential settlement for Plaintiff who suffered spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia due to defectively designed seat belt. Four passengers with three-point (lap/shoulder) belts walked away from the accident, and the only passenger wearing a two-point belt (lap only) suffered a debilitating spinal cord injury. The settlement assisted with home improvements to assist in daily living. GM entered federal bankruptcy during the process and no longer manufactures two-point lap belts for vehicles.



(Hillsboro, Ohio): Confidential Settlement for the family of elderly man who was catastrophically burned while operating a propane wall heater. The burns resulted in his unfortunate death. The heater, manufactured and sourced from China, was alleged to allow the flame to reach outside the grid area in violation of ANSI standards. The Defendant resolved the case following discovery and mediation. The recovered funds were paid to the victim’s surviving spouse and children. The company no longer manufactures this type of heater.

Request A Free Consultation


    • Answer a few general questions.
    • A member of our legal team will review your case.
    • We will determine, together with you, what makes sense for the next step for you and your family to take.
powered by Typeform

© 2020 The Lyon Firm. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED