Kevin is a member of the Casualty Department where he defends clients in suits brought against them involving environmental, toxic torts and mass torts litigation. A member of the firm's Board of Directors, he is an experienced and highly accomplished trial attorney who has successfully defended insureds in complex cases throughout the country.
Kevin is often retained by major corporations to serve as first-chair trial counsel in cases involving catastrophic injuries or fatalities. He has represented Fortune 100 Companies in premises and product liability wrongful death claims throughout the country. Kevin also serves as lead national trial counsel for significant premises and security claims for some of the world's largest multinational retail corporations. His list of clients represented in high exposure cases also includes: a major moving equipment/storage company, auto and tire manufacturers, multiple trucking companies and the City of Philadelphia.
In addition to his experience in civil litigation, Kevin has developed a successful criminal defense practice. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Kevin served as chairman of the Criminal Defense Section for a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, law firm. He defends NFL and NBA athletes as well as entertainers, in civil and criminal proceedings.
In 1994 Kevin graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he earned a Bachelors of Arts degree. He then attended Ohio Northern University – Pettit College of Law in Ada, Ohio, where in 1997 he earned a juris doctor, graduating with dean's list honors. While attending law school, Kevin served on the executive board of the Moot Court Program and received the Book Award for the Criminal Law Clinic.
Media Links
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf/2013/04/truck_driver_in_fatal_williams_1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCtdLCIFlbI
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/mother_of_man_killed_in_crash.html
Results
Appeal Successful Before the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services
We were successful on appeal of a child abuse determination levied against an Aveanna home health nurse. The three-day hearing was litigated before the PA Department of Human Services. As a result of the court’s order, the nurse’s record of child abuse is being expunged. The matter arose out of the alleged attack of a child-patient by a family dog during home nursing care. It was asserted that the nurse failed to properly supervise and protect the child, and failed to properly respond to the incident when it occurred. We established a lack of definitive proof that the nurse negligently left the child unsupervised. We also called into question the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack, including whether the dog had a known history of aggression, which led to credibility issues on the part of the family member witnesses. Medical experts also testified on the appellant’s behalf to address possible alternate explanations for the child’s injuries. Ultimately, we established that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, highlighting multiple errors and inconsistencies relating to the investigation as well as the reporting processes. This is a significant outcome in a difficult jurisdiction with many problematic underlying facts (which led to the decision to not call the nurse to testify in her defense).
Successful Representation of National Home Improvement Corporation’s Tool & Truck Rental Division
Marshall Dennehey’s trial and appellate attorneys were successful in their representation of a national home improvement retail corporation’s tool and truck rental division. Handling the case at both the trial and appellate levels, the defense was successful in convincing the New Jersey appellate court to affirm the trial court’s decision on July 23, 2024. At the trial level, the judge granted our motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The plaintiff had rented a flatbed truck in 2018 to move a cabinet he had just purchased. He alleged that a store employee gave him a set of ramps to use in the truck, but while doing so, they moved and he fell, sustaining serious and permanent injury to his back. The plaintiff alleged he later returned to the store and was told that he had been given the wrong ramps. The panel said that the record included no actual evidence that the ramp did not fit the truck beyond the employee’s saying it was the wrong ramp, or that the ramp slipped because it was incompatible with the truck. Even in his testimony, the panel said the plaintiff did not actually identify any physical cause for the ramp to move. “The dearth of evidence establishing the manner and cause of the slip or slide of the ramp rendered it impossible for the jury to make a reasoned determination as to whether defendant’s purported negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s fall and injuries,” the panel said. The court, therefore, affirmed the case on appeal.
