Caveat emptor: safe shopping for consumer safety

healyscanlonveugelergannon • March 19, 2015

Caveat emptor is one of the basic principles of tort law in product liability lawsuits. Loosely translated caveat emptor means buyers beware. Thus under this principle the buyer or consumer of the product is presumed to have basic knowledge of the product he or she proposes to purchase. However, the basic tragedy remains that many Illinois residents are not able to fully understand this concept.

There have been numerous products liability lawsuits in Illinois. Tragically, one of the most vulnerable classes of product liability cases has been about children’s toys. Many children’s toys have been recalled in the past few years due to inherent faults in them. Consumer safety thus becomes a major cause of concern for Illinois residents.

Consumer safety  in the digital world has now taken a paradigm shift. Many cases of identity theft have been reported due to unsafe purchases from some businesses. Consumers have been warned by state authorities to take various safety measures in order to protect themselves from such identity theft. Setting up transaction alerts as well as an upper limit for such credit transactions may help consumers to be regularly vigilant.

Children’s toys as well as bikes have been recalled by many renowned brands which are otherwise trusted by the parents implicitly. Product defects are not only found in children’s’ toys but also in children’s cribs, as well as bicycles and other utilities and were recalled by the manufacturers. Therefore, consumer vigilance may be the best way to generate consumer safety. In case of any injury suffered due to a defect in the product, parents and consumers may seek legal representation to initiate a products liability lawsuit.

Source:  IllinoisAttorneyGeneral.gov, “ Safe shopping ,” Accessed on March 13, 2015

April 13, 2026
Attorneys Michael P. Scanlon and Timothy J. Ganshirt secured a $1,000,000.00 Verdict for their client, Jane Doe. Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by her acupuncturist when she went to his office for treatment. Prior to trial, the Defendant did not make a settlement offer. At trial, the Defendant's attorneys argued that Plaintiff consented and recommended that the jury award a maximum of $7,000 to $8,000 to the Plaintiff, if the jury were to award anything. Instead, the jury returned a verdict for $1,000,000.00. Michael and Tim are filing a motion to add interest, fees, and costs to the verdict. If granted, thetotal judgment could reach up to $1,234,333.06.  This case highlights the importance of making sure that you choose attorneys who are willing to go to trial to ensure your case gets the full value it deserves.
March 25, 2026
Matthew M. Gannon and Michael P. Scanlon secured $40,000,000 for an operating engineer who suffered from third degree burns following a blast at an industrial facility.