Product Liability

Defending a Variety of Products in a Complex, Changing Environment

The landscape for product liability litigation is shifting—from the Supreme Court’s decision on multi-state jurisdiction claims to massive plaintiff verdicts to an increase in the volume of cases involving medical device makers and drug manufacturers. Defendants of all sizes are grappling with these changes and endeavoring to adapt their strategies as they seek to protect their operations.

Active in this sector for decades, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr’s Product Liability lawyers have successfully defended clients in multiple state and federal courts across the country, establishing a reputation for the comprehensive and yet focused defense of U.S. and foreign designers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. We defend a vast range of products from lawn chairs to medical devices in class actions, multi-district litigation and single claims. Our team handles complex claims, including those involving catastrophic injury and death, and does so on behalf of Fortune 500 manufacturers and distributors, as well as for mid-size companies. In addition, we have served clients as national and regional trial and coordinating counsel in cases where products were the subject of litigation on a national scope.

Our Product Liability group regularly handles matters related to regulations and guidelines issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), as well as other state and federal laws that regulate the manufacturing and sales of products.

We also advise clients regarding the quality of warnings that accompany a product, how to implement a successful recall, risk reduction and management programs.

Experience

Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr attorneys have handled these select product liability matters in the representation of:

A medical device manufacturer in a failure-to-warn case involving a fractured surgical screw.
A maker of alleged tainted biologics in hundreds of cases in state and federal court in which the litigation spanned more than a decade and included multi-district litigation and class action proceedings.
A Dutch distributor of tainted glycerin in obtaining a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in wrongful death claims brought in Florida.
A watch manufacturer in a putative class action regarding breach of warranty and consumer claims.
A roofing contractor regarding claims for breach of warranty and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
A manufacturer of CPVC pipe in a matter involving product liability and negligent installation claims.
A lighting fixture manufacturer with regards to advice on the terms and conditions of a sale to limit liability.
A retailer of over-the-counter cough syrup containing dextromethorphan in obtaining a defense verdict in a wrongful death case involving a minor child.
A TV manufacturer accused of deceptive trade practices in the marketing of its product.
A large retailer as its national counsel in tire-related litigation.
A motor coach manufacturer in mass tort litigation following a bus fire during the evacuation of nursing home residents from a hurricane.
A manufacturer of heavy and medium duty trucks and buses in a variety of matters, including a personal injury case involving a grab handle that came detached, a property damage insurance subrogation fire case involving a claim regarding the electrical system of a truck and a number of trucks being destroyed in a fire, and a commercial warranty case involving engines in school buses.
A manufacturer of riding lawn tractors, walk behind mowers, zero turn radius mowers and other types of outdoor power equipment regarding mower-related claims.
A large seller of intercity motor coaches in the U.S. in defense of a number of catastrophic crashes involving crashworthiness claims regarding seat belts, glazing and roof integrity. In addition, we have represented the same client in a number of insurance subrogation fire claims.
A national retailer in an impeller/hand contact case involving a snow thrower product that was made by a defunct manufacturer.
A multinational aerospace and transportation company in securing a summary judgment on the eve of trial regarding the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant failed to adequately warn against the danger of attempting to repair the battery and electrical components of a watercraft.
A multinational corporation as lead trial counsel in a lawsuit that claimed manufacturing and design defects in champagne bottles.
A manufacturer of a contact lens solution that was recalled nationally in the resulting injury litigation.
A manufacturer of implanted birth control in injury litigation.
A manufacturer of ophthalmologic surgical laser equipment in injury litigation.
A manufacturer of surgical laser equipment in injury litigation.
A manufacturer of ship-to-shore container machinery in a wrongful death action alleging design defects and defective warnings.
The maker of an asphalt paver in a design defect case.
The maker of lighting products for surgical or medical examination rooms in a design defect case.
A brand pharmaceutical manufacturer in claims related to its authorized generic drug.
A manufacturer of fentanyl patches in a wrongful death action.