PRODUCT LIABILITY

Case Studies

Silencing product liability claims against a siren manufacturer

Trial Results

Product liability/design defect/failure to warn (Texas State Court, Corpus Christie)

• Plaintiff sued the designer, manufacturer and distributor of a utility vehicle after supposedly climbing onto the vehicle’s cargo bed and then falling out and getting injured when the bed allegedly tilted.  Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle was defective because it did not have an automatic slam latch and failed to warn of the claimed hazards involved.  He sought $6.5 million in lost earnings plus an equal amount for non-economic damages. 
• The jury returned a defense verdict for our clients.

Product liability/design defect (Washington State Court, Tacoma) 

• Plaintiffs sued the distributor of a personal watercraft after an explosion during operation of the craft.  The personal watercraft had been subject to two-fuel related recalls, both of which were admitted into evidence.
• Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for $2.0 million in damages.  The jury returned a defense verdict for our client. 

Product Liability/Class Action (Missouri State Court, City of St. Louis)

• In this class action seeking $1.5 billion in damages, plaintiffs alleged that a cigarette manufacturer deceived some 400,000 Missouri smokers about Lights cigarettes.  After 30 minutes of deliberation, a trial that lasted 39 days ended with a total defense verdict.

Product Liability/pharmaceutical (Missouri State Court, City of St. Louis)

• We joined as co-counsel with a pharmaceutical company’s national counsel in obtaining a defense verdict on the first of several trials over birth defects claimed to have been caused by the use of an anti-depressant medication.

Product liability/wrongful death/design defect/failure to warn (California State Court, San Diego)

• Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against the manufacturer and designer of a personal watercraft arising out of an accident on the Colorado River in Arizona after the personal watercraft collided with another boat.  The plaintiffs’ theory of the accident was that the craft was improperly designed because it lacked a braking mechanism and/or off throttle steering device to allow the operator to steer the craft after releasing the throttle.  The operator of the craft, who owned a business, was claimed to have been earning approximately $18 million a year at the time of the accident.  Plaintiffs sought economic damages of $200+ million as well as punitive and other damages.
• The first trial ended in a hung jury after a 3-month trial.  In the retrial and after years of discovery (which included more than 50 depositions of witnesses from across the United States, Japan and Canada), the jury returned a defense verdict for our clients.

Product liability/wrongful death/design defect/failure to warn (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia)

• Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against the manufacturer and distributor of a personal watercraft after their son, who was floating on a raft when he was struck by a personal watercraft and died. The 14 year-old operator of the craft claimed that he was unable to steer the personal watercraft once he released the throttle. The plaintiffs’ theory of the accident was that the personal watercraft was improperly designed because it lacked a device to allow the operator to steer the craft after releasing the throttle.    
• The jury returned a defense verdict for TC’s clients.

Product liability/design defect (Missouri State Court, Jefferson County)

• Plaintiff, who suffered a serious injury from a nail that was embedded into his knee, filed this action against the manufacturer of pneumatic nail guns alleging negligence and strict liability for claimed defective design of the nail gun. 
• The jury returned a defense verdict for our client.

Product Liability/personal injury and property damage from house fire (Missouri State Court, St. Louis County) 

• Plaintiff, who suffered serious personal injury in a home fire, filed this action against a manufacturer and distributor of a smoke detector and alarm system claiming negligence in the installation and maintenance of the alarm system, and breach of contract for failure to monitor the system. 
• The jury returned a defense verdict for our client.  The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.

Product Liability/Personal Injury (West Virginia State Court, Kanawha County)

• We obtained a defense verdict for a cigarette manufacturer in a mass consolidation of more than 1,000 individual personal injury cases.

Product Liability/Personal Injury (Missouri State Court, City of St. Louis)

• We obtained a defense verdict for a cigarette manufacturer in a lawsuit brought by Missouri hospitals seeking to recover costs of treating smokers.

Product Liability/Class Action (West Virginia State Court, Ohio County)

• We obtained a defense verdict for a cigarette manufacturer in the first medical monitoring class action tried against members of the tobacco industry.

Represented a Fortune 500 equipment manufacturer in thousands of repetitive motion cases nationwide.  After we won the first two jury trials, the remainder of the cases resolved favorably.

We successfully defended our client in the longest jury trial in American history, a 65-plaintiff product liability/toxic tort case that was tried in notoriously plaintiff-friendly St. Clair County, Illinois.  Additionally, we successfully defended our client in one of the largest cases in American jurisprudence, a suit brought by the United States against the tobacco industry seeking $280 billion in damages. 

Early Resolution Through Dispositive Motions

Product liability/design defect/failure to warn (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina)

• Plaintiff sued the distributor of a personal watercraft claiming she was injured after falling off the back end of the craft.  In addition to strict liability claims, the plaintiff alleged failure to warn despite that she had not read the warning on the craft and was not wearing protective clothing.  After excluding the plaintiff’s expert opinion on the issue of warnings, the Court granted summary judgment on all issues.

Product liability/manufacturing defect/failure to warn (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia)

• Plaintiff sued the manufacturer and distributor of a motorcycle claiming he was injured due to a manufacturing defect with the voltage regulator.  The manufacturer had issued a recall that a defective voltage regulator in the motorcycle model could result in engine stalls during operation.  After getting the recall in the mail, the plaintiff filed suit alleging that the condition identified in the recall was what caused his accident, resulting in more than $2 million in medical expenses.
• After extensive discovery, testing and expert analysis, our Daubert motions and motion for summary judgment were granted, and later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

Product liability (Missouri Court of Appeals)

• Plaintiff sued an automotive manufacturer claiming negligence and strict liability arising out of a rollover crash.  We successfully argued to the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly limited plaintiff’s proffer of claimed similar incidents in an attempt to establish the client’s knowledge of the alleged defect.  The defense verdict was affirmed in favor of the vehicle manufacturer.

Product liability/Class Action (U.S. District Court of South Carolina) 

• Plaintiff filed a nationwide class action alleging exhaust system defects in diesel trucks.  After more than two years of extensive discovery, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class.  The court denied certification finding that the vehicle manufacturer had proven that the plaintiffs had not identified any common defect in the trucks as opposed to common vehicle systems.  The case was later dismissed.

Product liability/Class Action (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan)

• Plaintiff filed a nationwide class action alleging failure to timely recall vehicles having defective occupant restraint control modules that could cause inadvertent airbag deployment.  The court granted the vehicle manufacturer’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rejecting the notion that diminished value can result from a delayed repair.  The dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Sixth Circuit.

Product liability/Class Action (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) 

• Plaintiff filed a nationwide class action against the manufacturer and distributor of motorcycles asserting violations of the Federal Odometer Act.  The plaintiff claimed that the odometers in each of the subject motorcycle models intentionally overstated the actual mileage of the motorcycle by up to ten percent.  The plaintiff sought actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and punitive damages.  
• After certifying a class, the court later granted our motion for summary judgment on all counts.  

Product Liability/wrongful death  (Missouri State Court, St. Louis County) 

• Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the manufacturer of a wander alert system being used at a nursing home claiming that as a result of defective design and negligent installation, the decedent was able to exit a nursing home, and suffer injuries from a fall.
• We obtained a summary judgment on all counts.

Product Liability/personal injury (Missouri State Court, Boone County) 

• Plaintiffs filed this action against a manufacturer of automatic doors alleging that the doors closed on two customers, knocking them to the ground and causing injuries.  Plaintiffs claimed that the doors were defectively designed for failing to have an adequate fail-safe to prevent them from closing on someone in the threshold, and they also alleged negligent maintenance.
• We obtained a summary judgment on all counts for this matter and two related cases alleging the same allegations with the automatic doors.

Product Liability/defective design (Illinois State Court, Williamson County) 

• Plaintiff filed this action against a manufacturer of automatic doors alleging that a swinging door closed on her, knocking her to the ground and causing injuries. Plaintiff sued the general contractor who installed the door, and the general contractor brought in manufacturer of the door, seeking contribution and indemnity. 
• We obtained a summary judgment on all counts for the door manufacturer. 

Product Liability/wrongful death (U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas) 

• Plaintiff filed this action against the manufacturer of laser guided electronic warehouse pallet mover.  Plaintiff alleged that her husband was crushed by the vehicle after he fell in its path of travel.  Plaintiff’s liability theory was that the vehicle was defectively designed because it failed to adequately detect objects and persons while moving. 
• We obtained a summary judgment on all counts.

Product Liability/design defect/failure to warn/manufacturing defect (U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona) 

• Plaintiff filed this action against the manufacturer of a liquid pesticide alleging the canister leaked during application causing her to fall and shatter her leg. 
• We obtained a summary judgment on all counts.

Product Liability/failure to warn (Alabama State Court, Clarke County) 

• Plaintiff filed this action against the manufacturer of a pesticide alleging he suffered severe respiratory and other injuries caused by exposure to the pesticide. Plaintiff alleged that the labeling was inadequate in that it failed to warn him of the risks of exposure and failed to instruct him on how to avoid those risks.
• We obtained a summary judgment on all counts based on preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Product Liability/design defect (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) 

• Plaintiff filed this action against the manufacturer of a pesticide alleging it caused an explosion and fire in her apartment, resulting in severe burn and other injuries. Plaintiff alleged that the product was defectively designed because it contained a flammable propellant.
• We obtained a summary judgment on all claims.

Product Liability/design defect/failure to warn (U.S. District Court for South Carolina) 

• Plaintiff filed this action against the manufacturer of a pesticide alleging it caused a fire and explosion in her home.  Plaintiff alleged that the product was defectively designed because it contained a flammable propellant.  Plaintiff further alleged that the labeling was inadequate because it failed to warn of the risk of explosion and failed to instruct on how to avoid that risk.  
• We obtained summary judgment on all counts based on preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and South Carolina law.   

Product Liability/defective design (Missouri State Court, Pulaski County)

• Plaintiff filed this action against the designer of a convenience store canopy and drainage system alleging that as a result of defective/negligent design, water from the canopy was allowed to drain onto the areas where customers were filling cars, where it froze and created icy areas.
• Motion to Dismiss granted as the canopy was not a “product” placed into commerce by our client.

Product Liability/design and manufacturing defects (Illinois State Court, Cook County) 

• Plaintiff filed this action against the foreign manufacturer of an outdoor patio chair claiming it collapsed due to a structural defect.  Plaintiff suffered serious back injuries as a result of her fall. 
• We obtained dismissal of the manufacturer for lack of personal jurisdiction.