Experience
Product Liability Defense
We defended a large trucking company against product liability claims relating to the death of child. The child was struck by a waste-hauling truck manufactured in part by our client, and the plaintiffs alleged that the mirrors on the truck were insufficient in providing the driver with a clear rearward view. The garbage truck body manufacturer was named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit. We obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of our client in state court.
Product Liability Litigation
The Kentucky Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not bar a product manufacturer’s statute of limitations defense because of the manufacturer’s alleged concealment of product defects from governmental regulatory agencies. The Court also held that the discovery rule would not be extended to cases not involving latent injuries or illnesses, or professional malpractice.
Product Liability Litigation
Represented a concrete mixer manufacturer in product liability litigation in federal court. Plaintiff alleged that his injuries resulted from defective manufacturing and defective design of the concrete mixer unit designed, manufactured and installed by our client. After discovery, the case against our client was dismissed.
Regional Gas & Electric Company v. Turbine Manufacturer
Our client, a turbine manufacturer, contracted with a regional gas & electric company for the sale, construction, and installation of a turbine generator and associated equipment for use at one of its power stations. The gas & electric company filed a suit seeking in excess of $1 million, alleging that during installation, our client failed to properly install the generator and that the generator suffered substantial damage when certain parts broke. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence and breach of contract. We obtained summary judgment for the Defendant, arguing the contract and the economic loss rule precluded all of Plaintiff's claims. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment.
Serial Litigation Involving EIFS
Our firm acted as National Coordinating Counsel and handled serial product liability construction litigation throughout the country totaling $100 million involving EIFS exterior cladding. We were retained to represent dozens of clients in the construction industry in over 500 EIFS litigation cases, all of which proceeded through mediation, arbitration, trial or appeal.
Silicone Breast Implant Litigation
Dinsmore & Shohl coordinated on a national basis thousands of lawsuits in state and federal courts. We developed and presented complex medical and scientific evidence on emerging issues, involving silicone chemistry, product integrity, immunology and rheumatology.
Smoking and Health Litigation
Dinsmore & Shohl represented its tobacco clients in cases in a variety of state and federal courts participating in out of town trials in six cases. The cases ranged from medical monitoring class action to a major consolidated personal injury matter to individual lawsuits involving claims of lung cancer, peripheral vascular disease, laryngeal cancer, etc. The cases involved significant document management, as well as complex legal, factual and medical issues. All cases were fully litigated and either dismissed, disposed of on motion or tried to a verdict. In no case handled by Dinsmore & Shohl were the clients subject to punitive damages.
Tampon Product Liability Litigation
Defense of The Procter & Gamble Company against claims of Toxic Shock Syndrome and other illnesses alleged to have resulted from the use of tampons.
Werzinger v. American Suzuki Motor Corporation
This case involved claims for breach of warranty and consumer sales practices violations associated with an aquatic product. The Plaintiff's most significant claims were dismissed, and the jury verdict resulted in an award of only nominal damages.
Wilbur & Virginia Estep v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
The Plaintiffs asserted claims against Kia Motors of America, Inc. alleging violations of the Ohio Lemon Law and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The case was tried to a jury in the Court of Common Pleas, Licking County, Ohio. By utilizing effective cross-examination of the Plaintiffs and their expert as well as persuasive testimony from Kia's expert witness, we were able to obtain a complete defense verdict from the jury on behalf of our client.
- Page 3 of 3