CIVIL VERDICTS - PREMISES LIABILITY * Estate of Joan DeMarco v. The Marquis - Decedent business tenant of apartment/office complex owner murdered by former employee of defendant in violent assault during office burglary. Plaintiff's estate alleged negligent security theory of liability against defendant. Settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in excess of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Khaled Bakar v. Home Properties, Inc. - Plaintiff was standing on third floor balcony of friend's apartment owned by defendant, when the floor suddenly collapsed causing plaintiff to fall to ground. Plaintiff sustained fractured ribs, non-displaced tibia fracture and herniated disc, which was treated with physical therapy and multiple epidural injections. Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in the amount of Seven Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand ($769,000.00) Dollars. Plaintiff filed Motion for Delay Damages which was granted and case was settled for Nine Hundred Thousand ($900,000.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS * Riccardo v. Kim - Plaintiff sustained fractured cervical vertebrae at C5-6 level which required two surgeries and metal screws, arising from a two vehicle automobile accident. Out-of-court settlement negotiated with responsible insurance carriers in amount of Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Estate of Robert Kane v. Joseph Falco - Decedent killed while passenger in one-car accident where intoxicated driver lost control of vehicle. Wrongful death claim settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in the amount of Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand ($660,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Vinnie Moss v. Baldi Transportation/Erie Insurance Company - Plaintiff awarded Two Hundred Thirty Five Thousand ($235,000.00) Dollars by jury after trial. Defendant trucking company bankrupt and uninsured. Uninsured motorist claim settlement negotiated with plaintiff's insurance company in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,00.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - LIQUOR LIABILITY * Gerald & Irene Kane v. Dublin Wine and Spirits and Commonwealth of PA - Plaintiff husband and wife sustained multiple injuries in head-on collision with drunk driver. Husband-plaintiff sustained head injury resulting in brain hemorrhage and coma, with substantial recovery. Wife-plaintiff sustained broken ankle. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants prior to trial. Husband's claim - Two Hundred Forty Thousand ($240,000.00) Dollars. Wife's claim - Ninety Thousand ($90,000.00) Dollars. (Bucks County)* Edward Pisarek v. Adriatric Club - Plaintiff police officer assaulted while on duty by intoxicated bar patron skilled in martial arts. Plaintiff sustained permanent partial hearing loss and multiple lacerations. Non-jury trial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars. (Philadelphia County) CIVIL VERDICTS - PRODUCT LIABILITY* Keith Rosenberger v. Galoob Toys, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained temporary partial loss of vision in one eye with increased risk of future glaucoma, when struck in eye by defendants' children's toy, while plaintiff demonstrated newly purchased toy for child. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)* Raymond Cost v. Caterpillar, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained partial amputation of his lower leg, when his foot was crushed in an unguarded pinchpoint of rotating couplings inside engine area, while plaintiff was performing maintenance of defendant's heavy trash compactor/metal shearer. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendant in the amount of Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand ($475,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)

Consumers rely on various products/consumer goods to make our lives easier and more enjoyable. However, sometimes certain products come off the manufacturing line defective and dangerous. When this defective product falls into the hands of consumers, serious injury or death may be the tragic result.

By advertising and selling a product, the manufacturer or seller impliedly represents that the product is safe for its intended use. Therefore, the law holds manufacturers and retailers responsible for placing a defective product into the stream of commerce that injures its intended user.

In a product liability case a plaintiff may be able to recover on a (1) strict liability theory; or (2) a negligence theory under Pennsylvania law.

Strict Liability:

Under a strict liability theory, a plaintiff’s burden of proof is substantially less than in a basic negligence case. If strict liability applies, a plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant seller or manufacturer was negligent. Rather, generally all that a plaintiff needs to prove in a strict liability cause of action is: that there was a defect in the product, that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s possession and that the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Negligence:

To recover on a negligence theory a plaintiff must show that a defect in the product caused his or her injuries. However, unlike strict liability, a negligence theory requires plaintiff to provide additional proof that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in producing the product or was negligent under the law.

Categories of Defects:

Generally, there are three categories of defective products:

1. Manufacturing Defect. This occurs when a product comes off the manufacturing line different and more dangerous than all the other products because it wasn’t properly made according to design or production specifications. If a plaintiff is successful in proving a manufacturing defect, then the manufacturer of the product as well as each subsequent seller may be held strictly liable for any injuries to a plaintiff caused as a result of the defect.

2. Defective Design. Where an entire line of products comes off the manufacturing line the same and according to specifications, the product may still be defective if there is a flaw in the product’s actual design which makes the product unsafe for its intended use.

3. Failure to Warn. A product may also be defective based upon the defendant’s failure to warn about the possible hazards, defects, or dangerous propensities of the product.

At MM&L we have a record of successfully achieving substantial monetary awards on behalf of our seriously injured clients in product liability claims against heavy machinery manufactures, children’s toy manufacturers, and various other manufacturer defendants. The firm utilizes the most experienced and highly competent experts to analyze, build and present our clients’ claims.

Our diligent preparation and skillful execution in the courtroom ensures that our clients obtain the maximum recovery from the responsible party or parties.