Products Liability

For many years our attorneys have litigated cases involving asbestos exposure, industrial equipment and medical devices, taking numerous cases to trial. For example, we have defended manufacturers and suppliers of boilers, steam traps, pumps, compressors, valves, diesel engines, paper machine felts, caulking material, drywall materials, floor tile, dental molds, latex gloves, commercial laundry equipment and household toasters. We have also defended various manufacturing plant owners and are well-versed in premises liability defense.

Our firm has briefed and argued significant legal issues in the area of products liability in both trial and appellate courts, including whether courts have the authority to enter and enforce case management orders, whether an employer is liable for "second-hand" exposure under theories of environmental contamination and nuisance, and whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product is attached or used in connection with dangerous materials made or sold by others. In the process of defending products cases, we have developed expertise in related subject matters such as industrial hygiene, bio-statistics, epidemiology, pulmonology, immunology and pathology. 

We evaluate cases early to access the potential for quick resolution and to maximize each client’s defenses.  We work closely with our clients to develop case strategies, and we emphasize timely and thorough client communication. Our strong working relationships with the attorneys, experts and mediators who regularly practice in this area enable us to resolve many issues informally, without the time and expense of protracted litigation or complicated motion practice. Although we have a track record of resolving cases short of trial, part of the reason for our success is our proven courtroom skill and expertise.  We realize how expensive litigation can be, and emphasize cost-effective case strategies that take into account the relative risk of each case.  

Representative Matters:

• We defended an international product testing and certification organization in a series of lawsuits alleging that it had fraudulently applied its certification criteria and colluded with certain manufacturers to understate the safety risk for users and consumers on certain products and materials. The discovery focused on whether the certification or mark constituted a fraudulent representation and the issue of reliance. We successfully moved for dismissals in every case in which the client was named, and halted a potential string of new lawsuits to follow. 
• We represented a German manufacturer of electrical motors in a major fire loss case. The plaintiff was a former movie actress whose adjustable bed caught fire apparently following a lightning strike. Plaintiff filed suit against the seller in Oregon state court, alleging substantial property damage which included the destruction of her residence and the loss of Hollywood memorabilia, including an original script of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” in which the plaintiff had starred. The retail sales distributor of the bed then sued our client, seeking contribution and indemnity. The firm documented the manufacturer’s original design criteria and chain of distribution in US and established that the wiring schematic was modified after the motor had left the client's control. The US seller/third-party plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed its claims.
• We represented a company sued in several jurisdictions as an alleged corporate successor-in-interest to a manufacturer which had developed the industrial product at issue. Several decades had elapsed since the date of the alleged acquisition, and there was no direct evidence of the terms of the transaction. We established that a separate corporation had acquired and dissolved the client's alleged predecessor, and that the predecessor had only purchased the technology and design patterns, not stock. We also defended the corporate 30(b)(6) deposition and later moved for summary judgment. Following extensive briefing and argument, the trial court entered summary judgment in the client’s favor on that issue and fashioned an order which has since been adopted in subsequent cases.
• Similarly, we represented the interests of a publicly held corporation in a products liability action in which plaintiff alleged that the client had purchased the assets/liabilities of the company which had injured the plaintiff, prior to the client's having dissolved that company. The plaintiff also alleged fraud in connection with the client's dissolution. We worked with corporate and national counsel to defend the client's 30(b)(6) corporate deposition and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the client's dissolution occurred in the normal course in order to effect a consolidation and that there was no evidence of fraudulent reorganization in anticipation of product liability litigation. Just prior to argument, the parties mediated and achieved the client’s litigation goals.
• We represented a commercial flatwork iron distributor. Plaintiff was a career commercial laundry sales manager who alleged that his past work around asbestos-containing flatwork iron cover material caused asbestosis. We prepared a "state-of-the-art defense," including the historical development of commercial textiles and patents to provide a context for evolving industrial hygiene and regulatory standards and technological developments. The case was tried for more than two weeks, with a jury verdict favorable to the client.