Verdicts by Practice Area: Product Liability

Michienzie, Paul; Caron, Jason

Dismissal

Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Senior Partner, Jason Caron successfully argued for dismissal of multi-million dollar loss of consortium claims against our client, Bucher Municipal NA, Inc. (“Bucher”) in the products liability/personal injury matter styled Michael Whitney et al. v. Bucher Municipal NA, Inc. pending in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that Mr. Whitney’s wife, Jillian Whitney, was entitled to recovery for loss of consortium against Bucher, due to injuries Mr. Whitney allegedly suffered while operating a sewer cleaning truck sold by Bucher.  Mrs. Whitney’s claims were based on two distinct legal theories: one, that Mrs. Whitney had a viable loss of consortium claim based on Mr. Whitney’s underlying claim under M.G.L. Chapter 93A for alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices; two, that Mrs. Whitney could bring a direct claim as an injured party under Chapter 93A, separate and distinct from Mr. Whitney’s claim.  As to the first theory, our position was that under Massachusetts law, a loss of consortium claim must be based upon an underlying tort claim by the injured spouse, and that Chapter 93A, while tort-like in certain respects, does not qualify for that purpose.  As to the second, we argued that Mrs. Bucher lacks standing to bring an independent claim under 93A, because loss of consortium damages have never been recognized by a Massachusetts court as an independent category of damages.  After extensive briefing, the Court agreed with us on both points, dismissing Mrs. Whitney’s loss of consortium claims in their entirety. Read More.

Powers v. Sig Sauer, Inc., et al.

Moschell, Matthew P; Petrillo, Anthony J.

Dismissal

Tampa Partner Anthony Petrillo, Esq., and Tampa Associate Matthew Moschell, Esq., successfully argued a motion to dismiss our overseas client for lack of personal jurisdiction in a products liability action styled Powers v. Sig Sauer, Inc., et al. The case arose when the plaintiff sustained personal injuries after his firearm allegedly misfired. The plaintiff then filed suit against our clients, a large multi-national corporation and its German-based holding company. We immediately moved to dismiss the German-based holding company for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response to our motion, the plaintiff alleged that the German-based holding company could be sued in Florida state court because it conducted substantial and continuous business within the state. Specifically, the plaintiff cited to several hundreds of pages of our clients’ internal corporate filings in an effort to show that that the German-based holding company maintained constant and pervasive ties with their US operations.  However, through our own investigation efforts and legal research, we were able to refute the plaintiff’s jurisdictional claims and agency theory. Following a two-day hearing, the court granted our motion and dismissed our German-based client, finding that it had no personal jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claim.  Read more

Defense Verdict

Slip and Fall—Ladder, Polk County, Paul Jones and Thomas Farrell, $1M Sought, Defense Verdict, 1/21/2011. Read More

Construction Defect, Product Liability

Anthony Merendino, Daniel J. Santaniello

Defense Verdict

Jury found in favor of the Defendant on all counts on January 21, 2010. Federal Insurance Company filed a lawsuit in Federal court (Southern District of Florida) against our client, Bonded Lightning Protection Systems, Inc. Plaintiff claimed that  the Defendant improperly installed a lightning protection system in a mansion known as "Casa Amado" in 2005 during significant, ongoing renovations. On July 21, 2007, Plaintiff claimed that lightning struck a lightning rod on the top of Casa Amado and failed to deflect the strike safely to ground, resulting in a fire. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant improperly installed a lightning protection system in violation of the National Fire Protection Association standards (NFPA 780). The Defendant claimed the lightning struck near the subject home and energized unbonded wiring in the basement of the home and that the lightning protection system was properly installed. Plaintiff claimed that the damages that resulted from the fire cost in excess of $9.3 million to repair and/or rebuild. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence , breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose , and strict products liability. Read More

Excess | Wrongful Death, Product Liability

Summary Judgment

Anthony J. Petrillo, Managing Partner and Matthew L. Evans, Associate were granted a Motion for Summary Judgment December 17, 2007 in a
double death Products Liability case when the judge found in her order that “the dangers associated with carbon monoxide poisoning are well known and Tennaco had no duty to re-warn.” The case set in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida involved two teenagers who were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning, after spending the night in their mini-van. Read More

Favorable Verdict

Daniel Santaniello, Anthony Petrillo and Paul Jones, the defense team for Florida Pool Products, received a major win on November 2, 2006 for a one month product liability trial in Pinellas County. Wal-Mart and Florida Pool Products, Inc. were co-defendants in the trial of a 3 year old boy who was rectally impaled resulting in a colostomy on a dive stick that had been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Plaintiff asked the jury for $15 million in compensatory damages and further sought punitive damages in the amount of $32-40 million. The Jury found the family and others 85% at fault, resulting in a net verdict of $10,200 against our client and punitive damages of $120,000, well below a 7 figure Offer of Judgment.   Read More

Defense Verdict

Paul S. Jones and Joseph F. Scarpa received a defense verdict for the store in a Products Liability case where the store was sued under the theory of strict liability. The plaintiff worked as a superintendent for a roofing company. His company purchased a folding ladder from the store for use on the job. The plaintiff claimed that he was climbing the ladder to access a roof when one of the hinge locking bolts broke. The ladder collapsed and the plaintiff fell to the ground severely fracturing his left ankle which required internal fixation surgery. Also, his doctors’ testified at trial that plaintiff would need a second surgery to fuse the ankle joint to eliminate ongoing complaints of pain. Plaintiff’s past medical expenses were $50K. His doctors estimated another $50K for future medical care, including the future surgery. Plaintiff’s vocational expert and economic expert both testified that the plaintiff sustained over $381K in lost wages and lost earning capacity due to his permanent physical limitations. Read More

On October 31, 1998, Plaintiff was working as a guard in Tampa, riding in the cargo hold of an armored cash van manufactured by Defendant. Behind the guard's seat was a hollow metal bar designed to restrain the expected cargo of thirty boxes of coins (weighing approximately seven hundred pounds) and currency bags in the case of an accident. Defendant had never tested the design and did not submit the design for an engineering review. The van rear-ended a tanker in a heavy fog at a speed of approximately twenty-five mph. On impact, the cargo plowed through the metal bar with such force that it tore the seat partially off the pedestal and slammed the seat back into Plaintiff's head, breaking his neck. The case was tried on a single count of strict liability. Read More