Mitchum Deodorant Scandal: Do I Have a Personal Injury Claim?

However, they refused to comment on the current legal battles resulting from the issue.

The lawsuit will claim Mitchum failed to conduct proper safety or quality control testing, resulting in what they claim could be life-long consequences for those affected.

Mitchum deodorant product scandal: What could I make a claim for?

When injuries follow a change in manufacturing, lawyers commonly pursue claims such as;

Manufacturing defect (strict product liability)

The product that left the factory was unreasonably dangerous because it differed from the intended design or from other identical units.

Negligence

The manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in process controls, supplier validation, testing or quality assurance.

Breach of warranty (express or implied)

The product did not meet the promises or ordinary expectations of safety made to consumers.

Failure to warn/defective labelling

The manufacturer didn’t adequately warn of a known risk or recall.

Compensation can be claimed for medical costs, pain and suffering, scarring/ disfigurement, and in some jurisdictions, punitive damages where misconduct is egregious. Evidence typically needed includes medical records, retained product (with batch code), expert testing of the sample, and proof linking the injury to the product batch.

This isn’t the first time a process change has resulted in injuries; in 2006, an outbreak of Fusarium keratitis (a severe fungal eye infection) was linked to ReNu with MoistureLoc solution. Investigations suggested that some aspect of the MoistureLoc formula and/or manufacturing/storage process allowed microbes to survive, and the product was withdrawn. Hundreds of lawsuits followed, and Bausch & Lomb ultimately settled many claims. That episode illustrates how a seemingly small formulation or process change can alter a product’s real-world safety profile.