A jury in Chicago has ordered packaged food seller Conagra to pay $7.1 million to a Pennsylvania woman who claimed she was burned by oil from an overheated can of cooking spray oil.
The verdict was delivered on Nov. 1 in Cook County Circuit Court.
The jury decided in favor of plaintiff Tammy Reese, who claims she was injured when a can of Swell brand cooking spray exploded while she was cooking on the job in a kitchen in a club in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, in May 2017.
According to her lawsuit, Reese's face, hands and arms were burned in the 2017 incident.
The award includes $3.1 million in compensatory damages, plus $4 million in punitive damages.
The trial marked the first in a series of trials expected to continue in Cook County court on similar claims.
According to a release from the firm of Meyers & Flowers, which represented Reese, a total of 56 cases have been filed in Cook County CIrcuit Court against Conagra, leveling similar claims of injuries caused by allegedly exploded cooking oil spray cans.
According to the claims, the cans can become overpressurized and explode when kept too close to a stove or other heat source, igniting in flames and causing burns to people standing nearby.
The lawsuits all center on allegations that Conagra allegedly redesigned its aerosol spray cans in 2011 for cans of cooking oil measuring more than 10 ounces. The new cans included four "U-shaped score marks" on the bottom of the can, allegedly to vent the can's contents.
However, the plaintiffs alleged this design makes the cans more prone to explode.
Conagra discontinued the use of that can design in 2019, but plaintiffs' lawyers note the old cans have not been recalled and replaced on store shelves.
Conagra sells cooking oil spray cans under the Pam brand name and various other private brand labels.
In a statement, a Conagra spokesperson noted the can contained Swell brand cooking oil, which is used in foodservice and commercial kitchens. The spokesperson said "Conagra has been involved with producing Swell but Conagra does not own the brand."
In the statement, Conagra said it is evaluating legal options following the verdict, potentially including appeal.
"We continue to stand by our cooking spray products, which are safe and effective when used correctly, as instructed. In addition, the cans in question in this litigation haven’t been available for more than four years," the company said.
Conagra has noted its spray cans include clear warning labels on the front and back of the cans, to warn consumers that the cans should not be left near a stove or heat source, near an open flame, or in conditions above 120 degrees Fahrenheit, because the contents of the can are flammable.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said the company's warning labels weren't sufficient.
Attorney J. Craig Smith, of the firm of Koskoff Koskoff and Bieder, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, which also represented Reese in the case, said Conagra allegedly "put countless people in danger when it became aware of the clear danger posed by these defective spray cans," said
"It was even more irresponsible to reject a recall that could have averted additional injuries after these claims came to light, despite Conagra having known about these issues previously. While the jury’s award won’t be able to undo some of the victims’ injuries, we hope it can begin to undo some of the harm that Conagra caused them," Smith said.
Attorney Peter J. Flowers, of the Meyers & Flowers firm, of suburban St. Charles, said: "Overlooking the clear and present risk that their product caused to their customers just so they can turn a profit is one of the most shocking examples of corporate negligence that I’ve seen. While these defective cans are no longer being manufactured, consumers should still be aware that they are on the shelves and they can permanently harm you."