Complex Litigation

December 15, 2010

Following a six-week trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Robert J. Kelly, along with California local counsel, obtained a defense verdict for our helmet manufacturing client. The high stakes case involved a seventeen-year old motor cross rider, who suffered a severe and permanent brain injury as a result of a crash. The plaintiffs' demand entering trial was over $15 million. At trial, the plaintiffs contented that the helmet worn by the rider was defective and should have prevented the brain injury. We argued that the helmet performed as required and prevented any direct injury. The rider's brain injury could not have been prevented by the helmet, as this type of injury could not have occurred from impact. All defendants with the exception of our client settled prior to trial. After 10 hours of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict finding that the subject helmet was not defective and the manufacturer did not fail to warn plaintiff.

November 29, 2010

A New York state court accepted our argument that since our client was only the supplier of the materials used for a temporary staircase upon which the plaintiff allegedly sustained injury and thus did not own, maintain, or control the staircase at the time of the accident, judgment was warranted as a matter of law.

November 15, 2010

In a fire case in which the plaintiff alleged that our client had negligently designed and/or manufactured an electric power cord included in a wall-mounted electric water fountain, the New Hampshire Superior Court held that our client was protected by New Hampshire's building industry statute of repose and awarded summary judgment to our client.

October 01, 2010

Scott Toomey and Jim Ughetta achieved a defense verdict before a jury in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in July, 2010. Our client, a bicycle helmet manufacturer, was sued by a high school teacher who sustained serious and significant brain injuries, confining him to a wheelchair, when struck by a car. Plaintiff contended that the bicycle helmet failed to adequately manage the impact energy involved in the accident, and should have been redesigned to absorb more impact energy. We argued that the helmet performed as it should have and prevented any direct contact head injuries. We also argued that that the helmet was adequately tested, and that the brain injuries could not have been prevented by any bicycle helmet currently sold.

June 01, 2010

Jim Ughetta and Scott Toomey achieved a defense verdict in a Philadelphia state court product liability trial involving a carbon composite bicycle handlebar designed by our client. Plaintiff claimed at trial that when he was competing in a bicycle race, his carbon composite handlebar failed, causing him to fall to the ground. As a result of the accident, plaintiff sustained a comminuted clavicle fracture with open reduction surgery and internal fixation, scapula fractures, seven broken ribs, a closed head injury, and disfigurement. The jury found no defect in the handlebar. The case was tried in June of 2010.

January 04, 2010

A Federal District Court in New York denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of our client. The court agreed with our client's arguments on all points when it denied the plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses from the answer and dismissed the quantum meruit and theft of intellectual property claims against our client.