Cooking spray burn victim receives $7.1 million in damages due to fiery can explosion.

Conagra Brands Ordered to Pay $7.1 Million ⁤to Burn Victim in Cooking Spray Lawsuit

A⁢ jury in Illinois has delivered a verdict against Conagra Brands, the parent company of popular cooking spray brand Pam,⁢ ordering⁤ them ⁢to pay $7.1 million in damages to Tammy ⁤Reese, a Pennsylvania woman‍ who ⁣suffered severe burns in a workplace accident. The‌ incident occurred in 2017 when a can of Swell cooking spray exploded, engulfing Ms. Reese in flames.

This ruling sets a‍ precedent for numerous other burn victims ‌across the country who have experienced similar accidents involving Conagra-made cooking spray brands. The verdict includes‌ $3.1 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.

According to the lawsuit,⁤ Ms. Reese sustained deep​ second-degree burns⁢ on her head, face, arms, and hands, resulting in long-term physical ⁢limitations. Craig Smith, ⁣one ⁢of her lawyers, stated that scar tissue continues to restrict her movement⁣ even six years later.

Conagra‍ Brands ‌has expressed disagreement with the jury’s decision, emphasizing their commitment to product safety. The company is considering legal options, ‍including ⁤an appeal.

Related ⁤Stories

• Best Buy Recalls Nearly 1 Million Pressure Cookers Due to Possible Burn ⁢Hazard

  10/31/2023

• Toyota Not Advising⁢ People to Park Recalled RAV4 SUVs Outdoors Despite Reports of Engine Fires

  11/4/2023

According to‍ Mr. Smith, there are over ‌50 pending cases against Conagra from⁣ burn victims ‍nationwide. The company has refused to issue a product ⁢recall for the “defective”​ cans, which has⁢ raised ‌concerns among legal representatives.

The accidents⁤ involved various spray can models‌ manufactured between 2011 and 2019, ​utilizing a venting system with a‌ lower heat threshold. When exposed⁢ to excessive heat, the cans release their flammable contents into the air, leading to dangerous ⁣situations.

Consumers can identify ​vented cooking spray ⁣cans by checking for⁣ four small U-shaped slits at the‌ bottom. Larger cans, typically​ 10 oz. or more, are more likely to be affected.

The incident involving Ms. Reese occurred when the cooking spray can, stored on a shelf above the ⁤stove, exploded. Similar incidents have been reported across the country, highlighting the potential dangers of storing these⁢ cans⁤ near​ heat ‍sources.

In response ⁢to previous lawsuits, Conagra stated that the vent system was used on a limited number of⁤ cans and was eliminated during a product redesign in 2019. The company also emphasized the presence of clear warning ⁤labels on their cooking spray products.

By Claire Savage

⁣ How does⁢ the ruling against Conagra Brands ⁣serve as a wake-up call ‌for other manufacturers in terms of the importance of rigorous product testing ‌and safety measures

Burns over 30% of her body ​as⁢ a⁢ result ​of the ⁢explosion. She was working​ in a restaurant kitchen when the incident occurred. The explosion was allegedly caused ‌by a defect in the ⁢can’s design or⁣ manufacturing process, leading to the release of pressurized contents and subsequent ignition.

The jury found Conagra Brands negligent in its duty to ensure the safety of its products. The verdict sends a strong‌ message‌ to the company and others in the industry that they⁢ must⁤ prioritize consumer​ safety and thoroughly test their products before bringing them ⁢to market.

This‌ ruling is an‍ important step towards holding corporations accountable ‍for the⁢ harm they cause. Burn injuries can have lifelong physical, ⁤emotional, and financial consequences for victims. Ms. Reese’s case highlights the devastating impact workplace accidents ⁢can have⁢ on individuals and ​the⁤ need for companies to take responsibility for their products.

Cooking spray⁤ is a commonly used product in households and professional kitchens, and consumers must be able to trust that the products‍ they purchase are safe to use. The explosion ⁢of a can of‌ cooking spray not⁤ only poses a significant risk of burn ⁣injuries ⁢but⁤ also presents a fire hazard ​that could potentially cause extensive property damage and⁣ harm to others nearby.

The compensatory damages awarded to ⁤Ms. Reese‍ are meant to⁣ cover her ‌medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other related costs. Additionally, the⁢ jury awarded punitive damages to punish⁣ Conagra Brands for its negligent⁢ actions and to ‍serve as a ​deterrent to prevent​ similar incidents from occurring in the future.

This case serves as a⁣ wake-up ‌call for‌ other manufacturers in ⁣the industry. ⁢It highlights ⁢the importance ‌of rigorous product testing, quality control processes, and clear warning ​labels. ⁤Companies cannot ‌afford to overlook⁣ safety measures or cut corners. ⁢The consequences‌ can be severe, ⁤not only ‍for the victims but also​ for the reputation and financial stability of the company involved.

It ​is essential for consumers to exercise‍ caution when using cooking ⁢spray ⁢or any other⁤ household ⁣product, as accidents can‌ happen even with seemingly innocent items. Following safety guidelines, such as​ keeping ‍cooking⁣ sprays away​ from​ open flames and​ ensuring ⁢proper storage, can help reduce the ‌risk of accidents.

Burn ‌injuries are preventable, ⁣and companies must prioritize the ⁢safety of their customers. This ruling should ⁤serve as a reminder to all ‍manufacturers to reevaluate their product safety ‌protocols and take necessary steps to prevent similar incidents from occurring. Consumers deserve ⁣the assurance‌ that the products they use are safe and have undergone thorough testing.

In conclusion, the verdict⁤ against ⁣Conagra Brands in the cooking spray ‌lawsuit‌ highlights the importance of product safety and holding⁢ corporations accountable for their⁢ actions. This landmark ruling not only provides justice ‍for Ms. Reese but also sets a⁣ precedent for other burn victims who have suffered due to negligent manufacturing or design. ‌It serves as‍ a reminder to all manufacturers‍ to prioritize consumer safety and take proactive steps to ​prevent ‌harm‍ to their‍ customers.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases