Experience
MDL 926: In re: Silicone Gel Breast Implant Product Liability Litigation
Served as national coordinating counsel for Dow Corning Corporation, a leading silicone medical products manufacturer, in thousands of product liability cases pending in federal multidistrict litigation in the N.D. of Alabama, as well as in numerous state courts.
Michael Thompson v. Brown & Williamson, et al.
Dinsmore & Shohl served as trial counsel for Brown & Williamson in a smoking and health case involving allegations of laryngeal cancer causation and corporate misconduct that was tried in state court in Independence, Missouri in 2005. The case resulted in a small compensatory verdict for plaintiffs against Brown & Williamson ($200,000.00); no punitive damages were awarded.
Michael Thompson v. Brown & Williamson, et al.
Trial counsel for Brown & Williamson in dozens of tobacco/smoking cases including obtaining a defense verdict in a class action in West Virginia making claims for medical monitoring.
Michelle Dillion v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc.
Plaintiff asserted a claim against Mazda Motors of America, Inc. alleging violation of Ohio's Lemon Law and breach of warranty. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle demonstrated a "pulling" or "drifting" concern that had not been corrected within a reasonable number of repair attempts. By utilizing effective cross-examination of the Plaintiff and persuasive testimony from Mazda's expert witness, we were able to obtain a complete defense verdict on behalf of our client.
Personal Injury Allegations
We defended an international automobile manufacturer against allegations of personal injury resulting from a defective product. The plaintiffs alleged that a door handle on a vehicle manufactured by our client was defective and it malfunctioned, causing an injury. The plaintiffs neglected to secure testimony from an expert witness regarding the vehicle’s design, manufacture or maintenance, and we filed a motion for summary judgment in federal court, claiming that the plaintiffs could not prove an identifiable defect in the product. The court granted summary judgment to our client, stating that “plaintiffs cannot establish a design or manufacturing defect without expert testimony.” The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff v. Recreational Vehicle Manufacturer
Defense of a recreational vehicle manufacturer against claims of quadriplegic plaintiff operating recalled ATV. Experience included deposition preparation with Japanese apex witness in Japan and presentation of two Japanese witnesses for depositions.
Plaintiff v. Recreational Vehicle Manufacturer
Defense of a recreational vehicle manufacturer against claims of paraplegic plaintiff. Experience included preparation and presentation of Japanese apex witness for deposition, Hague Convention issues and response to attempts to take discovery worldwide.
Popcorn Flavoring / Diacetyl Litigation
Dinsmore & Shohl represents International Flavors & Fragrances in the butter flavoring litigation that arose after a NIOSH investigation found a significant lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, in a Missouri popcorn plant. The firm's trial team, consisting of Frank C. Woodside, III, Mary-Jo Middelhoff and J. David Brittingham, has taken 8 cases to trial since 2003 and continues to litigate numerous cases in a variety of jurisdictions.
Product Defect Case Involving Cladding Installed On a Home
We represented home owners in a highly contested and aggressively litigated product defect case associated with “EIFS” cladding installed on their residence. The manufacturer of the product contended that our clients’ claims were precluded by the terms of a class action settlement agreement. We obtained a favorable ruling from the court of appeals that our clients’ claims were not barred by the class action settlement. As a result of the favorable ruling from the court of appeals (upheld by the Supreme Court of Ohio), we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement to resolve the matter.
Product Defect Case Involving Marine Products
We represented an international motor vehicle manufacturer in a product defect case in Atlantic City, New Jersey involving allegedly defective marine products. Following the conclusion of a trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding the Plaintiff only nominal damages.
Product Liability Case Involving Vehicle Airbag
We represented an international motor vehicle manufacturer in a product liability personal injury action in Ohio. The Plaintiff asserted that the vehicle’s airbag system failed to deploy, and further asserted this alleged defect resulted in enhanced injuries arising from an automobile accident. By effectively developing persuasive expert witness testimony, we were able to reach a favorable settlement through a mediation session.
Product Liability Case Relating a Vehicle Fire
We presented a major automobile manufacturer in a product liability case in Hamilton County, Ohio arising out of a car fire. At the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the court granted our Motion for a Directed Verdict and dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claims.
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 Defense
These two unrelated product liability cases for the same national medium and heavy duty truck manufacturer involved the issue of spoliation of physical evidence (vehicle components). In the first case Plaintiff insisted that the vehicle be preserved “as is” until his expert could inspect it. We moved for summary judgment on the basis of spoliation but were happy to take a directed verdict dismissing the client at the end of the Plaintiff’s case. In the second case we asked the owner to preserve the allegedly defective (and recently recalled) component. It mysteriously disappeared. After a two day hearing in which six engineers testified to the bench, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed. Although we did not have an opportunity to clarify Kentucky spoliation law on appeal, two respected state court judges disproved the myth that trial judges will not seriously consider spoliation defenses.
Product Liability Defense
We defended a large national car and truck manufacturer in a product liability claim that the medium duty truck had a defective steering component which allegedly caused a single vehicle accident resulting in the death of the driver. We obtained a unanimous defense verdict in federal court in Western Kentucky.
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.
Seatbelt Defense
We represented a large automobile manufacturer in a case relating to a vehicle accident. The driver was struck by another vehicle and ejected, ending up in a coma before ultimately passing away. Plaintiffs alleged that vehicle defects contributed to the driver’s demise. We became the first Kentucky case in which an auto manufacturer was allowed to use the seatbelt defense in a product liability crash worthiness claim, proving to the trial judge that a seat belt would have significantly reduced the victim’s risks. The jury eventually handed down a defense verdict, finding that the vehicle was not defective.
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