PRODUCT LIABILITY

 

Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Springfield, MA
    
     This case involved a hunting stand.  We represented the manufacturer of tree stands, which are designed for outdoor hunting primarily for large game.  The stands are used to rise above the “scent-line” and are used to then get into a sniper position.   
     The plaintiff, a multi-millionaire home builder, claimed that he was substantially injured and that his future ability to earn an income was diminished by the fact that he had fallen out of a tree stand when the stand moved as he was getting in. He alleged that it was defective by design.  The questions regarding the design involved the safety latch methods in which to erect the stand and a failure to warn the plaintiff on the use of safety lines. 
     This matter was tried before Judge Ponser in the federal court in Springfield.  The trial was approximately two weeks.  There were experts on both sides with regard to the design stand.  The defense presented an expert on hunting safety.  The hunting safety expert, former game warden in the State of Mississippi and national standards author, testified that the design of the stand was common, practical and safe, and that it was the plaintiff’s failure to use proper climbing methods, which caused the stand to become disconnected when the plaintiff attempted to enter the stand.  The plaintiff had received his National Safety Certificate.  He should have known the proper method.  The jury returned a defense verdict after four hours of deliberation.  The plaintiff sustained cervical fractures at two locations, which required a complicated surgery.
     There was extensive testimony from a neurosurgeon about the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the future disability, the extent of which was in dispute.  This case had a value well in excess of $1,000,000.00.

 

Jurisdiction: Worcester Superior Court, Worcester, MA
                       
     This matter involved a gas powered wood splitter.  We represented the defendant, a rental center.  The allegations against the rental center were that it failed to provide the operational manual and written warnings along with the product.  The maker of the product was also a defendant.  Our defense was that the information that we did not provide with the rental had no bearing upon the accident, and therefore the plaintiff’s misuse of the product in placing his hands between the log to be split and the wedge was of no consequence as to the rental company. 
     It was demonstrated by way of a jury view that the push rod moved very slowly and that warnings language that was printed at several locations on the wood splitter was the identical language to what would have been provided.  The plaintiff conceded that he saw the language on the wood splitter.  At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, directed verdict was awarded to our client.  The case continued against the co-defendant manufacturer.  A defense verdict was achieved. 
     This case involved the amputation of several fingers of a middle-aged father who was approximately in his late 40s at the time of the accident.  This case had potential verdict value well in excess of $1,000,000.00. 

 

Jurisdiction:  Norfolk Superior Court, Dedham, MA

     This matter involved a table saw which the plaintiff alleged was defective.  The table saw had its blade-guard removed while stored in the garage of our client, who regularly used it.  Our client permitted his neighbor, the plaintiff, to use the saw.  The plaintiff was an experienced user of saws in that he had worked as a meat cutter his entire professional life.  He regularly used band saws.  At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was approximately 58 years old and planned to continue to work for another ten years. 
     The table saw did not contain a guard.  Our client indicated that he had purchased the saw used, without a blade-guard, and could not remember from where.
     While using our saw the plaintiff totally amputated one finger and partially amputated two fingers.  The plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 given future lost wage loss and pain and suffering and disfigurement.  Through the course of the litigation we were able to show that the plaintiff was very knowledgeable about saws.  The plaintiff’s saw expert was successfully attacked on his experience as an expert in many areas, and inconsistencies with past testimony.  His credibility was greatly harmed, and it hurt the plaintiff’s case.  We were also able to make substantial points against the plaintiff’s expert on the theory that the very saw he was criticizing in another case was the saw he was holding out as an exemplary saw in this case. 
     In short, after approximately a half day of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict.  In large part it seems that the verdict was based on the fact that the plaintiff had knowledge of saws and understood that he was using a saw without a guard and certainly had the wherewithal to check on whether a guard was present and whether one should be added.