Dinsmore & Shohl represented Synthes, a medical device manufacturer, in the Ohio cases involving alleged injuries from the use of pedicle screws.  The cases were dismissed.

We represented our client, Genie – a global aerial work platform manufacturer, in a lawsuit after a worker suffered fatal injuries in an entrapment accident. The plaintiffs claimed that aerial work platforms should be equipped with mandatory secondary guarding accessories, which plaintiffs claim would have prevented this death. The plaintiffs sought $69 million, including punitive damages.  Post-accident evidence, including evidence of non-similar accidents, were allowed to go to the jury. Despite these challenges, we received a unanimous defense verdict from the jury after nearly two weeks of testimony.  The jury rendered the defense verdict in under 90 minutes, agreeing these machines, which have been used for decades and millions of man hours, are not defective and unreasonably dangerous. This case was also significant for the industry, as it is the first entrapment case to be tried to verdict.

Over the course of his career, Mr. Jernigan is experienced in the defense of major cases involving primarily corporate defendants.  Those cases have ranged from contract disputes to product liability claims involving the statewide representation of, among others, American Motors and Chrysler Corporation in the defense of Jeep rollover litigation; Sturm Ruger & Co., Inc. in the defense of product liability claims involving certain of its firearms; Johns Manville Corp. in defense of asbestos related claims; Black & Decker Corporation in the defense of various product liability claims involving guiding issues; and Procter & Gamble in defense of toxic shock claims.

We represented The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) in a lawsuit filed by Definitive Solutions Company, Inc. (DSC) in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. DSC sued its former employees and their new employer, as well as P&G, when those employees left DSC. DSC asserted claims against P&G for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, and civil aiding and abetting. After extensive discovery, P&G moved for, and was granted, summary judgment on each of DSC’s claims.

A bench trial on various claims DSC asserted against the other defendants was held in 2014. The trial court ruled against the former employees and awarded DSC damages. DSC ultimately settled with its former employees, and it appealed the trial court’s decision granting P&G summary judgment on the breach of contract and tortious interference claims.

On appeal, DSC claimed that P&G breached an agreement not to “directly solicit for employment” employees who had worked on its account and also that P&G had tortiously interfered with DSC’s relationship with the employees. The First District Court of Appeals rejected both of DSC’s arguments and affirmed summary judgment for P&G. The Court of Appeals found that the agreement between DSC and P&G prohibited solicitation for employment, not solicitation of another company to perform work. The Court also found nothing in P&G’s conduct that rose to the level of tortious interference.

See Definitive Solutions Co., Inc. v. Sliper, 1st Dist. Hamilton App. No. C-150281, 2016-Ohio-533.

Since 1986, representing numerous motor vehicle manufacturers in product liability cases in Kentucky and Indiana. Defect allegations defended against include seatbelts, airbag deployment, airbag non-deployment, no airbag, rollover propensity, roof intrusion, seatback deformation, fuel system, post-collision fire, electrical systems, unintended acceleration, absence of rear camera, and various claims relating to warnings. Significant experience in MDL practice and proposed class actions.

Successfully defended motor vehicle manufacturer at trial in March 2022.  High exposure case involving three fatalities and one significant injury.  Defect allegation involved frontal crashworthiness and bumper welds.  Unanimous defense verdict.

National liaison counsel for Recreational Vehicle Manufacturer in multi-district litigation involving more than 300 product liability lawsuits involving the design of a side-by-side utility vehicle. Co-trial counsel for 12 of these lawsuits involving Kentucky plaintiffs.

We defended a husband and wife, homeowners, who had rented their home to the plaintiffs, a husband, wife, and infant child. Approximately 2 months after moving into the home the infant child was diagnosed with autoimmune pancytopenia a relatively rare but known blood disorder. Autoimmune pancytopenia is a depression of the blood cell lines, reds, whites, and neutrophils. At about the same time that the infant child was diagnosed with autoimmune pancytopenia, mold, including stachybotrys mold, was discovered in the home. The plaintiffs claimed that they were forced to abandon the home, destroy all of their personal property, and further that the mold exposure caused the infant child's autoimmune pancytopenia. The theories of recovery asserted against the defendant home owners were of negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the warranty of habitability. At trial plaintiffs proceeded solely on their negligence theory.

During pretrial discovery it became clear that the plaintiffs' expert on the contention that the alleged mold exposure caused the infant's autoimmune pancytopenia was not following generally accepted scientific/medical methodology to reach his causation opinion. On behalf of the home owners, we filed a Frye motion to exclude this expert. After extensive depositions of both the plaintiffs' expert and our expert as well as briefing and arguing the issue, the trial judge excluded the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused the infant son's autoimmune pancytopenia. At trial, plaintiffs proceeded on their property damage claim and also on the theory that their infant son's asthma was caused by the alleged mold exposure in the home.

Following three days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for less than 10% of the claimed property damage and a defense verdict on the asthma claim.

Plaintiffs filed post trial motions seeking to reverse the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert on autoimmune pancytopenia. The trial judge affirmed his decision. The plaintiffs then took an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused autoimmune pancytopenia.

Plaintiff filed suit against our client, a general contractor, seeking $100,000 for defects in Plaintiff's home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl obtained a dismissal in favor of the general contractor on the basis of the North Carolina Statute of Repose.

Plaintiffs filed a $300,000 suit against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home related to moisture intrusion and structural defects.  The general contractor in turned filed suit against 12 different subcontractors.  The case was settled favorably for the client after two days of mediation.

Plaintiff filed suit for $1,000,000 against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home. The claim went through a week-long arbitration, settling favorably for the client before a verdict was rendered.

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against our client, an insurance company, seeking coverage in excess of $75,000 for moisture intrusion damage due to defects in Plaintiff's home.  The case was removed to Federal court, was never certified as a class action and was eventually dismissed.

Plaintiff sued our client, a plastics manufacturer, for personal injury and product liability when a chair manufactured by the client broke.  The case was settled at mediation.

Plaintiffs filed a $200,000 suit against the general contractor, who in turn filed suit against our client, a window manufacturer, for alleged defects in the windows.  The case was settled after mediation.

Defended manufacturer against product liability claims, resulting in defense verdict at trial affirmed on appeal. Defended premises liability case, obtaining summary judgment affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court.