A crucial portion of our firm’s product liability practice is assisting our clients in determining when they may have exposure and when settlement is the best option. We know that sometimes a trial is not the desired alternative for our clients given the facts of a case and the applicable law. Our Attorneys are experienced in determining the settlement value of a suit and negotiating settlements that help our clients to move on both fairly and efficiently. Our attorneys have obtained favorable judgments in hundreds of cases at the district court level. With our experience, we help our clients realistically evaluate their exposure to product liability claims, and we work with them to achieve successful and efficient out-of-court settlements.
However, sometimes trial is necessary. Our lawyers have defended clients in numerous product liability actions, including suits involving the following products:
- Cellulose Insulation
- Clothing and Textiles
- Cleaning Systems
- Computer Equipment
- Electric/Propane/Natural Gas Powered Equipment and Appliances
- Farm Implements
- Industrial Machinery
- Food Products
- Fume Hoods
- Halogen Lights
- Medical Products and Appliances
- Propane Grills
- Recreational and Sports Equipment
- Sprinkler Systems
- Toxic Chemicals
- Trailer Homes
- Water Heater Parts
- Khoury v. Phillips Med. Systems, 614 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2010). Obtained dismissal in a physician’s lawsuit against manufacturer of a medical device. Minnesota Federal District Court determined that plaintiff’s expert was unqualified and unreliable under the Federal Rules of Evidence, excluded the expert’s testimony, and granted dismissal. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
- Tousignant v. Kanan Enters., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52309; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. p. 18, 686. Defeated a summary judgment motion brought by a co-defendant in Minnesota Federal District Court, which held that since the manufacturer of the food product was insolvent and in bankruptcy, distributor was not entitled to the protections of Minnesota’s Middleman Statute.
- Finke v. Hunter’s Vie, Ltd. and Wal-Mart Stores, (D. Minn. 2009). Obtained summary judgment dismissal for retailer of a deer hunting tree stand for design defect, negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability claims.
- Hammond v. Compaq Computer Corp., Rittal Corp, and Ortal Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90245 (D. Minn. Sept. 29, 2009). Obtained dismissal of negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, strict liability design defect and failure to warn claims brought under Minnesota’s Middleman Statute, court concluding our client did not play a significant role in the design of the cabinet manufactured by another defendant.
- Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Div. of Dynamics Corp., 366 N.W.2d 111 (Minn. 1985). Successfully argued that the owner of a piece of farm equipment that killed plaintiff was a member of a joint enterprise with plaintiff’s employer and, as such, could not be held liable for contribution in an amount larger than the workers’ compensation benefits to which employer was exposed.
- Kneibel v. RRM Enters. d/b/a McDuff’s, et al, 506 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). Obtained summary judgment on behalf of restaurant against plaintiff who claimed there was a foreign object in his food, court concluding that because the alleged foreign object was never recovered there was no evidence identifying the object, and thus no way of determining whether restaurant breached its duty of care. Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
- Tessman Seed & Chem. Co. v. State, 467 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). Obtained dismissal of claims against a pesticide distributor after an explosion at a retailer, court concluding that pesticides were no longer in the custody or control of the distributor and manufacturer was not a “responsible party,” as required for liability under Minnesota Pesticide Control Act.
- Lindsay v. St. Olaf College, 2008 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 106 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2008). Obtained summary judgment on behalf of mechanical engineering company, court concluding that plaintiff failed to establish that a defect in the design or installation of the fume hood caused the explosion.
Defense Research Institute, Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association, Wisconsin Defense Counsel, Council of Litigation Management