SUIT SAYS PAM COOKING SPRAY'S MAKER CONCEALS EXPLOSION RISKS Schmidt v. ConAgra Foods | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

SUIT SAYS PAM COOKING SPRAY'S MAKER CONCEALS EXPLOSION RISKS Schmidt v. ConAgra Foods | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, SUIT SAYS PAM COOKING SPRAY'S MAKER CONCEALS EXPLOSION RISKS Schmidt v. ConAgra Foods, Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

SUIT SAYS PAM COOKING SPRAY'S MAKER CONCEALS EXPLOSION RISKS Schmidt v. ConAgra Foods

26 No. 1 WJPRODL 12By Ronald V. Baker, Senior Legal Writer, Westlaw JournalsWestlaw Journal Product Liability (Approx. 3 pages)

SUIT SAYS PAM COOKING SPRAY'S MAKER CONCEALS EXPLOSION RISKS Schmidt v. ConAgra Foods

26 No. 1 WJPRODL 12By Ronald V. Baker, Senior Legal Writer, Westlaw JournalsWestlaw Journal Product Liability (Approx. 3 pages)

26 No. 1 Westlaw Journal Product Liability 12
Westlaw Journal Product Liability
*1 February 18, 2015
Cooking Oil
By Ronald V. Baker, Senior Legal Writer, Westlaw Journals
Copyright © 2015 Thomson Reuters .

SUIT SAYS PAM COOKING SPRAY'S MAKER CONCEALS EXPLOSION RISKS

Schmidt v. ConAgra Foods

Briefs and Other Related Documents
Two Connecticut women who say they were burned when a can of Pam cooking oil exploded and sprayed its flaming contents on them have sued ConAgra Foods for $10 million.
Schmidt et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1816, complaint filed (D. Conn.,...
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to Top)
End of Document© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.