 |
      |
 |
|
 |
|
Johnson & Bell’s Product Liability group is comprised of attorneys dedicated to the defense of product manufacturers. The group’s attorneys have successfully defended clients in state and federal courts in Illinois and throughout the country for more than 25 years, garnering a national reputation for the aggressive defense of U.S. and foreign designers and manufacturers of products.
The Product Liability group has handled cases ranging from the defense of common household products to the most sophisticated manufacturing machinery and scientific, medical and aeronautic instruments and devices.
Among the cases successfully defended by the Product Liability group are suits involving agricultural and construction equipment, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, computerized process control equipment, railroad and automotive products, consumer electronics and other consumer products, sports and recreational products, manufacturing equipment, asbestos and mined products, and food processing equipment. Johnson & Bell’s product liability lawyers also counsel clients in risk reduction and management programs, and assist the firm’s clients in developing warnings and related documentation for their products. In addition, we have served clients as national and regional coordinating counsel in cases of products subjected to litigation on a national scope.
Representative Cases
- Successfully defeated $38.64 million claim against manufacturer of scissors in case filed by machine operator alleging the lift had a defective design. Case resulted in a not guilty verdict at trial on behalf of the manufacturer and was featured in the National Law Journal as one of the top defense verdicts nationwide in 2000.
- Successfully represented manufacturer of fire truck in suit by family injured during rescue attempt from fire in apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Case resulted in no liability for manufacturer as Johnson & Bell successfully argued that fire truck provided by manufacturer fully complied with specifications provided by New York Fire Department.
- Successfully defended the manufacturer of a pressure vessel in a three-week product liability trial in Cook County, Illinois by demonstrating that accident was caused by any defect in the vessel, but rather by premises owner’s unsafe work practices.
- Obtained summary judgment in favor of manufacturer of large industrial flatbed rail car utilized in steel mill in case filed by plaintiff who sustained serious closed head injury when he was struck by a component of the car. Johnson & Bell successfully argued for application of the contractor’s specification doctrine, urging that, as the client merely manufactured the car to the specifications of its designer, which were not obviously defective, client should be absolved of liability.
- Obtained summary judgment on behalf of manufacturer of scissors lift in wrongful death product liability action after successfully moving to bar plaintiff’s expert’s opinions as unreliable and failing to meet the Daubert standard.
- In a case of first impression before Michigan courts, successfully argued for application Michigan Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property in case filed by plaintiff who sustained a partial amputation of his dominant hand while reaching into a papermaking machine to attempt to clear a jam.
Recent Opinions
- In a case of first impression before Michigan courts, Johnson & Bell successfully argued for application Michigan Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property in case filed by plaintiff who sustained a partial amputation of his dominant hand while reaching into a papermaking machine to attempt to clear a jam. Matthews v. Beloit Corporation, 807 F. Supp. 1289 (W.D. Mich. 1992).
- The Illinois Court of Appeals awarded Johnson & Bell a victory in the case of Terry, et al. v. Conopco, et al. The plaintiff plant owner sought contribution following its payment of a $14 million wrongful death settlement arising out of an industrial accident involving a pressure vessel designed and manufactured by Johnson & Bell's client. The jury found the plaintiff plant owner 93% at fault, apportioning 5% to J&B's client, and 2% to the co-defendant. The defense argued that the trial court erred in denying Johnson & Bell's motion for directed finding, which was based, in part, on evidence that the product had been modified after it left the client's control. The Court of Appeals agreed, and reversed the jury verdict, resulting in no liability for J&B's client.
On September 24, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the plaintiff plant owner's petition for review, making this victory complete.
Product Liability Attorneys
Fall 2011 Product Liability Newsletter |
|