Experience

• Defended a product liability action involving a national homeopathic diet supplement manufacturer in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division for Atlantic County, related to claims of a manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn.  The Plaintiff claims she required emergent cardiac surgery related to consumption of the product.  After filing a Motion for Summary Judgment challenging all theories of liability, the case resolved for under six figures.

• Defended the manufacturer of an electric bicycle following claims of a defective design resulting in an explosion that destroyed a home and attached garage. Through discovery, we uncovered the plaintiff had substantially altered the product and accordingly misused the product. The case resolved via settlement at a significant discount from the sum certain damages to the property.

• Assisted in successfully achieving a defense verdict in a five-day jury trial. Our client was a building engineer in a case involving an electrical shock accident in the basement of a building. The plaintiff was attempting to remove the copper wire from a live switchgear box when he received a substantial electric shock which resulted in the amputation of his middle and ring fingers from his left hand.  The plaintiff claimed he was told by the building engineers the switchgear had been dead for 20 years and further that the building engineers told him he could take the switchgear and do whatever he wanted with it. The plaintiff and the defendant building engineer each presented expert testimony from an electrical engineer and a doctor. The co-defendant building owner/building management denied knowing the plaintiff and his friend were in in the building, but both the plaintiff and his friend testified to the contrary, as did the building engineer. The co-defendant building owner/building management settled with the plaintiff on a Joint tortfeasor release while the jury was deliberating. The jury found the defendant building engineer negligent, but the negligence was not a factual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Verdict was therefore rendered in favor of the defendant building engineer.