0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Products Liability, Georgia, automotive
Products liability trials often turn into a battle of the experts. With stacks of documents, intricate design specifications, accident recreations, and other data for a jury to consider, a verdict can swing on how convincingly an expert delivers complex, dry information. Even the best data can be undone by an expert who can't to explain it clearly, while strong expert testimony can be the most powerful element of a party's case. In a brain injury trial over Ford's Explorer SUV design, accident reconstruction expert Todd Saczalski powerfully supported the theory that led to an eight-figure plaintiff's verdict.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Negligence, Products Liability, Florida, Robinson v. Ford Motor Co.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Negligence, Products Liability, tobacco, Florida, Larkin v. R.J. Reynolds
Defending a product liability suit involving a fatal accident carries a host of built-in difficulties. Jurors are inherently sympathetic to the family of the victim and prone to believing what may be 20-20 hindsight and post-incident product criticism. To overcome these hurdles, a strong defense must both delve into the technical details that led to a manufacturer’s decision and highlight those details with clear, powerful language that makes the decision logical. In Emmanuel v. Ford Motor Co., Kevin Schirferl uses his powerful closing argument to persuade that Ford’s design decisions did not cause Jonathan Emmanuel’s death.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Products Liability, Florida, Emmanuel v. Ford Motor Co.
