Attorneys: Christopher A. Cazin

We represented the manufacturer of a popular type of blender in a case where Plaintiff alleged that her blender exploded during use, causing burns to her hands and arms. Plaintiff’s medicals were less than $200, and evidence showed that she was blending warm ingredients, which is contraindicated for that particular device. Despite these facts, Plaintiff’s opening demand was $75,000. The case was resolved in under a year for $9,000.

Attorneys: Richards "Dick" Ford, Kurt M. Spengler

Served as local counsel to primary products counsel. Represented a firearm ammunition manufacturer in a claim that a defective bullet spontaneously fired amputating a finger. The case was settled before trial.

Attorneys: Raymond E. Watts, Jr.

Represented our client manufacturer in a product defect claim related to a traumatic amputation from hamburger patty machine. At trial we received a defense verdict.

Attorneys: Raymond E. Watts, Jr.

Defended our client in a product defect case where a homeowner claimed damages against the home builder related to use of Louisiana Pacific siding.  We received a defense verdict.

Attorneys: Richards "Dick" Ford

Defended a fireworks retailer in a case where, during the course of New Year’s Eve celebrations, a mortar exploded, resulting in the amputation of Plaintiff’s left hand and forearm to the elbow. Evidence showed that Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the incident and was holding the mortars in his hand to light them, rather than standing them on the ground as intended. Plaintiff demanded $4 million; case resolved for $150,000.

Attorneys: Melissa T. Woodward, Kurt M. Spengler

This case involved an alleged defect in a key socket on a tire lift kit sold by our client. Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries to his ankle as a result of a key socket malfunctioning while he was rotating the tires on his Jeep Wrangler. Plaintiff demanded $100,000 at mediation; case resolved for $15,000.

Attorneys: Hugh B. Harris
Birmingham Partner Hugh Harris recently obtained summary judgment in a products liability case, originally filed in state court then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. We served as local counsel for a ladder manufacturer in this case in which Plaintiff fell from the ladder during his course of work examining the roof of a house. Plaintiff alleged significant injuries that required surgery and extensive physical rehabilitation. He filed suit against our client, alleging that the locking mechanisms on the ladder failed, which led to his fall and subsequent injuries. Plaintiff put forth an expert that speculated as to potential design flaws in the ladder, but ultimately was not able to provide any actual scientific evidence of a manufacturing defect. Extensive testing of the ladder by defense experts showed undisputed evidence that Plaintiff’s primary theory of liability was inconsistent with the facts surrounding the incident. As such, we argued that Plaintiff’s expert should be struck and that Plaintiff was incapable of meeting the requisite burden of proof. The Court granted summary judgment in our client’s favor, resulting in a complete dismissal.