We are recognized for aggressively and innovatively defending high-stakes products liability lawsuits. Our lawyers have successfully represented manufacturers, distributors and retailers against claims based on negligence, strict product liability and breach of warranty. We are skilled at developing the factual and legal defenses and explaining to jurors the complex scientific and technical issues that often arise in product liability cases. As a result of our experience, we have been retained as national and regional trial counsel for over 60 corporate clients.
Representative Products and Substances
The Firm has successfully resolved cases involving a multitude of products and toxic tort substances:
• Chemicals and chemical by-products, including asbestos, benzene, cement kiln dust, coal tar, creosote, cyanide, dioxin, e coli, gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, heavy metals (chromium, selenium, etc.), herbicides, hydrocarbons, kerosene, lead paint, manganese, methyl parathion, mold, natural gas, nickel chloride, particulate matter, pesticides, petroleum products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), salmonella, thorium, trichloroethylene (TCE), uranium/thorium nuclear waste, urea formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
• Consumer goods, including automobile, auto parts, appliances, bicycles, child safety seats, dietary supplements, electronics, food, firearms, fitness equipment and helmets, glass, recreational products, swimming pools, tires, and window latches.
• Hard metals and industrial machinery, including circular saws, cutting saws, fine grinding machines, hand tools, power presses, power tools, and welding rods.
• Pharmaceutical, medical device, and other health care products including blood, HIV in blood supply, breast implants, dietary supplements, diet drugs, ethylene oxide in hospital sterilization equipment, latex, and pedicle screws.
• Vehicles and equipment, including aircraft and helicopter components, agricultural, buses, electrical switches, elevators and escalators, forklifts, tractors, large-transport trucks, portable automatic lifts, and presses.
Our product liability attorneys have represented clients such as Atlantic Richfield Company, Black & Decker, Crane Pro Services, Emhart Industries Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Electric, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Hobart Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Corp., Liquid Carbonic Corporation, Material Handling Service, Rose Acre Farms, Sears, Roebuck & Co., Tetra Pak, Inc., Terminix, and Titanium Metal Corporation of America.
If you would like more information about the Firm's product liability practice, please contact:
C. Barry Montgomery
Phone: 312-443-3242
E-mail: cbm@willmont.com
Representative Cases:
Messman v. Crane Pro Services , U.S.D.C. N.D. IL. Represented crane manufacturer in case alleging defectively designed crane. The case was originally tried to verdict by another defense firm, resulting in a $16 million verdict. The case was reversed on appeal, and we were hired to re-try it. In the second trial, we obtained a defense verdict for our client.
Rogers v. Material Handling Service, Cir. Ct., Lee County, IL. Represented distributor of a forklift truck. The estate of the deceased forklift driver brought suit against Material Handling alleging negligence for failure to notify plaintiff’s employer, the owner of the forklift, of the availability of a universal safety seat developed 20 years after original sale. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had assumed a post-sale duty to warn/retrofit. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted and affirmed on appeal.
Peterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Cir. Ct. Cook Co., IL. Represented Goodyear Tire in suit seeking $21 million in damages for quadriplegia allegedly caused by a defective tire resulting in a single vehicle rollover. Received verdict for Goodyear. (This case was cited by The National Law Journal as one of the Outstanding Defense Verdicts in the U.S.)
Brown v. Titanium Metals Corp. of America (Timet) , various courts throughout country. Represented Timet in a product liability mass tort arising from United Airlines Sioux City, Iowa crash resulting in over 100 deaths and numerous other injuries. Timet allegedly manufactured a titanium ingot which eventually resulted in metal fatigue of a part in the engine which caused the crash. Received dismissal of Timet with no payment.
Alcala v. Emhart Industries Inc. , U.S.D.C. N.D. IL. Represented Emhart Industries, the successor to the original manufacturer of a splitting machine used to cut rubber tires, in a suit seeking damages for alleged negligent design. Received verdict for Emhart.
Cartwright v. Goodyear Tire Company, Cir. Ct. Cook Co., IL.. Represented Goodyear in tire separation cases. Case previously tried by different defense counsel resulting in $12 million verdict which was overturned on appeal. Case settled just prior to second trial for $50,000.
Smith v. Black & Decker , Will County, IL. Represented Black & Decker in suit seeking $12 million compensatory and punitive damages arising out of alleged defective design of Black & Decker power saw. Received verdict for Black & Decker. (Selected by The National Law Journal as one of the Outstanding Defense Verdicts in the U.S.)
Estate of Cody Quimby, minor v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , U.S. Dist. Ct., AR. Represented defendant Sears in suit against manufacturer and retailer of above ground swimming pool alleging defective warning and design of pool. Plaintiff age 15 became a quadriplegic after diving into the pool. Received verdict for Sears.
Lister v. Bill Kelley Athletic, Inc. , Cir. Ct. DuPage Co., IL. Represented manufacturer Kelley Athletic, Inc. in suit alleging defective design of a football helmet. Plaintiff became a quadriplegic after making a tackle during a high school football game. Received defense verdict.
Sedler v. Hobart Corp. , U.S.D.C., MD. Represented manufacturer Hobart Corporation in a suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages arising out of allegedly defective design of Hobart power saw. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff could not prove a causal relationship. Defendant's motion was granted.
