Product Liability

Leonard, Street and Deinard’s Product Liability group provides the firm’s clients with a broad range of experience in the trial and management of product liability, class action, MDL and complex tort cases in Minnesota and throughout the United States. Our attorneys have litigated a wide variety of matters involving wrongful death, catastrophic injury and economic and commercial loss in state and federal courts in virtually every state in the country.

Our attorneys have served as national or regional trial counsel for a number of Fortune 500 product manufacturers. Over the years, we have developed a trusted network of local counsel in jurisdictions throughout the country, which enables us to effectively coordinate legal activities and control litigation expenses. We have access to experts in a wide range of disciplines, and have extensive experience developing and presenting complex scientific testimony to courts and juries in clear and understandable terms. In addition, our attorneys have broad experience in challenging the admissibility of opponents’ expert testimony under state and federal rules of evidence.

We pride ourselves in maintaining longstanding client relationships, having represented many of our clients regionally or nationally for the better part of two decades. We have built strong institutional partnerships with our clients by becoming intimately familiar with their products and by adhering to a philosophy and practice of early case evaluation and budgeting, cost-effective case staffing and management, and creative problem solving. Our approach is designed to minimize the burden on our clients of responding to claims, resolve claims early in the litigation cycle, reduce risk and eliminate surprise. We have worked with numerous clients to develop creative fee arrangements in appropriate cases and circumstances.

In addition to representing clients in a wide variety of litigated matters, our firm’s attorneys routinely consult with clients on product safety and loss prevention matters, including CPSC regulatory compliance, contract disclaimer and warranty language, advertising and product literature, warnings and instructions and employee training.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
A sampling of clients and engagements recently handled by the attorneys in our Product Liability group.

Class Action and Mass Tort

Alligood et al. v. Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. et al.

Our attorneys represented a major ammunitions manufacturer and its subsidiary, in a recent nationwide class action in which plaintiffs alleged that certain ammunition manufactured and sold was defective. Plaintiffs sought class certification contending that all class members, who had not suffered any personal injuries themselves, had nonetheless suffered economic harm because the ammunition failed to conform with warranties. In March 2009 a federal court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding that variations in state law with regard to the requirements of privity, notice, reliance and manifestation of product defect would predominate over questions of law or fact common to the members of the class, rendering class certification inappropriate.

O’Neil et al. v. Simplicity, Inc., et al.

We represented crib manufacturer Simplicity in a Minnesota class action arising from a voluntary recall of approximately one million cribs following reports of three infant deaths and several potentially hazardous “incidents” allegedly caused by defects in the design and manufacture of the crib. Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court claiming that although their crib had not malfunctioned, they had suffered economic injury because the crib failed to perform as warranted. A federal court granted Simplicity’s motion to dismiss the case in its entirety, holding that plaintiffs had not suffered a legally cognizable injury.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union et al. v. Medtronic, Inc.; The Kinetic Co., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.

We represented Medtronic in two companion “no-injury” class action cases brought by third-party health benefit payors and employers seeking reimbursement for medical costs associated with the installation and potential replacement of an allegedly defective implantable defibrillation device. The complaints in both cases asserted claims for strict liability, negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and Unlawful Trade Practices Act. We filed motions to dismiss both cases on the grounds that: (1) plaintiffs had not suffered any “injury in fact” and therefore lacked standing; (2) plaintiffs’ statutory claims were barred by plaintiffs’ inability to demonstrate the requisite public benefit; and (3) plaintiffs’ tort claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine.

National Counsel

A. O. Smith Corporation

We have served as national counsel in agricultural and electrical products litigation for 20 years, and as national coordinating counsel in welding rod litigation.