Product Liability

We won a motion for summary judgment in Schuylkill County, PA, in a premises liability and product liability case. We represented the manufacturer of a concrete railroad crossing that was installed at an intersection in 2005. In 2021, the plaintiff was riding his bike across the crossing when his bike tire allegedly became stuck in a gap in the concrete. There was ample evidence that the railroad was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the crossing while our client did nothing other than supply the prefabricated crossing. We argued the gap that developed in the crossing was not the responsibility of the crossing manufacturer and that the statute of repose barred the lawsuit. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer.

We successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal of a trial court decision sustaining preliminary objections on the grounds of improper venue. This case involved the death of a 19-year-old woman at a university who fell down an 11-story trash chute in an off-campus condominium building. In this mixed negligence and product liability case, we represented two of the multiple defendants, the condominium association and the building management company. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas found that venue was improper in Philadelphia County and ordered that the case be transferred to Centre County. The plaintiff appealed that decision, and the matter was briefed and argued in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court, in a precedential decision, affirmed the trial court’s decision and found that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the preliminary objections. In support of its decision, the Superior Court found that the plaintiff’s arguments were unsupported by Pennsylvania law. The Superior Court, in finding waiver of an issue, quoted directly from the brief prepared by Kim.

We received a defense decision after a seven-day bench trial in a product liability action in which the exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. Our client designs, sells and services engineered equipment for the energy industry, including natural gas compression apparatuses for use in transmission pipeline systems. In 2015, the client sold the plaintiff two reciprocating compressor systems to replace outdated equipment at a station located near Downingtown, PA. The compressor systems were designed to inject oil into the gas stream for piston lubrication. This lubricating oil needed to be removed from the gas stream using filtration devices supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed weld debris contained within certain vessels of the compressors migrated downstream upon commissioning and compromised several gas filtration devices. The plaintiff further contended the damaged filtration devices permitted excess lubricating oil into the pipeline, which fouled multiple turbines owned by its downstream customer at a large natural gas-fired power plant, causing significant economic losses. The applicable contract between the plaintiff and our client contained a forum selection clause requiring litigation to take place in Lake County, Indiana. The plaintiff claimed commercial losses of $18 million, plus attorney fees (per contract) in the neighborhood of $4 million. The plaintiff also maintained it was entitled to pre-judgment interest. If successful in establishing liability, this sum would have added another $5 million to $7 million to the damage award, depending on the interest rate employed by the court. Therefore, the pure exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. In response to the plaintiff’s claims, we successfully established that the weld debris incident was a red herring and did not damage the filtration equipment. Material testing of debris from within the filtration devices revealed very little weld debris compared to pipe scale and other naturally occurring components. Through key expert testimony, we established that the plaintiff could not meet its burden of proof because the oil contamination events may have been caused by several factors directly attributable to the plaintiff’s lack of design engineering, inadequate equipment maintenance, equipment failure and inappropriate response to system alarms.

We successfully obtained dismissal of their client in a death-from-food-poisoning and hepatitis A case. The plaintiff, Joyce Neeld, executrix of the Estate of Alfred Neeld, alleged that Mr. Neeld passed away due to an outbreak of hepatitis A in southeast Pennsylvania, which was widely covered by the news at the time. The plaintiff, who claimed that Mr. Neeld passed away after eating at Gino’s Pizzeria and Ristorante, was seeking several million dollars from every food provider that served the restaurant, including our client. Fortunately, the plaintiff stipulated to our dismissal.

We obtained summary judgement on behalf of a homeowner in a 10-plaintiff negligence action arising from a house fire. In granting summary judgement, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed that the plaintiffs’ failure to secure a cause and origin expert was fatal to their case as the fire was alleged to be electrical in nature and, thus, outside the purview of the average juror.

We successfully secured summary judgment in a product liability case involving an “exploding” wine bottle. Our client was the distributor of the bottle and was brought into the case as a third-party defendant. The plaintiff testified that on Thanksgiving Day, she attempted to open the bottle with the handle of a wooden spoon when the bottle unexpectedly and suddenly exploded in her hands. The plaintiff brought a product liability claim, asserting defects with the design of the bottle in using unusually thin glass prone to breakage. As the plaintiff did not produce any liability expert reports, we were able to argue that expert testimony was necessary for the plaintiff to prove her case, as the subject matter was one involving special skills and training not common to the ordinary layperson.   

We secured a jury defense verdict in the Superior Court of New Jersey in a product liability case where the demand was $650,000. The plaintiff alleged a defect in the handle of an ultraviolet light disinfecting device that caused her to develop trigger finger. They alleged a design defect and failure to warn claim, claiming permanent damage to her ring finger and hand as a result of surgeries to correct the injury.

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. 

We won a defense verdict in a high-exposure product liability trial, defeating claims that a client’s hair dye caused bladder cancer. The verdict was reached after a two-and-a-half week jury trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiffs’ claim was that the hair dye made by global men’s hair dye manufacturer caused the husband’s bladder cancer. Prior to trial there was a significant demand, but the jury wholly rejected the plaintiffs’ negligence and strict liability claims. Background: The plaintiff was a part-time barber in Reading and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1994–2008. On occasion, he used the defendant’s hair dye on his customers and himself. He also worked full-time as a book binder at various printing companies. In August of 2016 he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. He filed suit against the manufacturer, claiming that their hair dye was contaminated with the chemical 4-aminobiphenyl (4-ABP), which is a known carcinogen. Numerous expert witnesses were called by both sides—toxicologists, epidemiologists, organic/anylytical chemists, urologists and occupation physicians. The defense denied that the hair dye product contained 4-ABP because its manufacturing process is conducted in such a manner that it would not create 4-ABP. This was supported via corporate witnesses and multiple experts. After one hour and 13 minutes of deliberations, the jury found that the defendant was not negligent and their product was not defective. Read about this verdict in The Legal Intelligencer (subscription required): Pa. Jury Rejects Claims Linking 'Just For Men' Hair Dye to Cancer."  

We secured a dismissal with prejudice in a product liability case in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, who were involved, but not responsible, for a drunk driving accident, claimed that the beverage manufacturer was liable to them because the product had more alcohol than other alcoholic beverages and was improperly marketed to minors. Our team successfully argued several points, including that Pennsylvania does not recognize such a product liability cause of action because the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving are obvious, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn potential users of such dangers.

We obtained a defense verdict in a slip and fall case which allegedly occurred in a New York supermarket. The plaintiff, a supermarket employee, claimed that he slipped and fell on water from a floor washing machine being used to clean the floors. During investigation of the claim, we discovered that the plaintiff slipped and fell on water from frozen food that he was unpacking. At trial, we successfully argued to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying that the floor washing machine was leaking water in that this expert never inspected the floor washing machine. As the plaintiff never produced witnesses of the accident or photographs of the accident location, the jury rendered a defense verdict in 26 minutes.

We obtained dismissal of our client via preliminary objections in a significant product liability matter. The plaintiffs were seriously injured in a workplace accident involving a tile packaging machine. Despite the plaintiffs asserting that original process was properly served on our client, we successfully argued to the court that the purported certified mail receipt was never signed by an agent of our client and, in fact, simply said “COVID-19” on the signature block. The court sustained our objections and dismissed the case as to our client.

Our attorneys succeeded in obtaining an affirmance in the Fifth District Court of Appeal of a final dismissal order of a wrongful death product liability action. The decedent’s estate filed the lawsuit two years after the statute of limitations expired. The estate argued the statute was tolled for a variety of reasons. The trial court dismissed the case, with prejudice, after giving the Estate five attempts to amend. The Fifth District affirmed the dismissal and dispensed with oral argument that same day. 

Our attorneys prevailed on an appeal to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ request for class certification in a product liability and warranty action. The named plaintiffs are several property owners and communities of common ownership who allege they have yellow-jacketed, corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) transporting natural gas through their structures. The flexible, yellow CSST is the modern heir to the black iron pipe formerly universal in the building industry. The flexible CSST offers advantages, including ease of installation, but the plaintiffs asserted there are latent product defects that risk failure in the event an electrical surge makes its way to the tubing, either from an in-house event or nearby lightning strike. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for nationwide and Pennsylvania-wide class certification of their disparate claims because of a failure of record proof on the elements of ascertainability of a sufficiently numerous class, predominance of typical and common claims, and an inability to demonstrate proof of liability and damages issues on a class-wide basis. The Third Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ request for interlocutory review of the class certification decision, but nevertheless affirmed the district court’s ruling on largely the same bases. Without passing on the merits of the product defect claims, the Third Circuit recognized that there was no basis to grant class-wide treatment given the differences in everything from notification to putative class members, liability and damages proofs, and the law governing claims. The denial of class certification was affirmed, and the case will proceed on an individual basis only.

The defense prevailed on summary judgment for a nail salon owner against negligence and product liability claims by a plaintiff who slipped and fell off-site while still wearing pedicure slippers. The plaintiff had received a pedicure at our client’s nail salon. When she left the premises, she continued to wear the disposable pedicure slippers. The plaintiff then walked in the rain and eventually slipped and fell upon entering a retail store. The plaintiff brought general negligence and product liability claims against the nail salon’s owner. At the conclusion of discovery, the court granted our motion for summary judgment based upon the plaintiff’s admission that there was nothing wrong with the slippers and her failure to provide expert opinion as to the existence of any defect in the slippers.

We were successful on a motion for summary judgment that was granted dismissing all claims against our client, an environmental compliance services and tank testing company, in a case where the plaintiff made an $8.75 million settlement demand. ​The plaintiffs, a minor mother and child, were at a gas station in Philadelphia when a vehicle inadvertently struck a fuel dispenser, knocking it over and causing a fire and explosion. The claims and cross-claims asserted against our client alleged it should have installed or advised the gas station owners to install a valve that would have prevented the fuel leakage that exacerbated the fire. We filed a summary judgment motion arguing that the claims and cross-claims asserted against our client went beyond the scope of the environmental compliance services it was hired to perform such that our client had no duty to either install or advise of installing different valves. The court granted our motion dismissing all claims and cross-claims against our client.

In this complex lawsuit, the plaintiff suffered traumatic injury when the steering column of his tractor trailer became unyoked, rendering it uncontrollable and causing it to crash. The manufacturer is a Delaware LLC headquartered in North Carolina, but it manufactured the truck at its plant in Virginia. The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania citizen, crashed while driving it in Texas. The suit was filed in Philadelphia, as the LLC’s sole corporate parent is a Pennsylvania corporation. Based upon that, the plaintiff argued that the LLC should be deemed a citizen of Pennsylvania. The trial court sustained our preliminary objections due to lack of jurisdiction. We briefed and argued the appeal the plaintiff filed with the Superior Court, which affirmed on the basis that, despite its Pennsylvania parent, the LLC itself is not “at home” in Pennsylvania because it is formed and headquartered elsewhere. Therefore, there is no general personal jurisdiction over it.