Overview
When a liability issue arises with a product, both reputation and profitability are put in jeopardy. By working fast and providing informed, aggressive representation, Morris James LLP helps our clients get ahead of the story and stop an isolated issue from compromising the goodwill they have spent years accumulating with their customers.
Our Products Liability Practice
Morris James' attorneys have shaped the development of products liability law in Delaware. We have successfully argued, in cases of first impression, that:
- Determined that there is no strict tort liability in Delaware
- Established a sophisticated purchaser defense
- Defined the causal nexus required in toxic tort cases
- Rejected claims for cancer phobia unaccompanied by injury or disease
- Argued and won the appeal of the exclusion of plaintiff’s scientific experts on Daubert grounds and the grant of summary judgment to a toxic tort defendant
We have worked in the past with companies from a wide range of industries, providing representation in all manner of product liability litigation. Some areas in which our products liability defense attorneys have represented clients include:
- Benzene
- Agricultural Chemicals
- Urea Formaldehyde
- Aircraft
- Industrial and Agricultural Machinery
- Outdoor Power Equipment
- Automobiles and automotive parts
- Electrical equipment
- Consumer and Food Products
Effective representation in these cases requires both a strong knowledge of product liability law and a technical background relevant to the processes and materials that go into each product. At Morris James, we do the research necessary.
Products liability claims are often multiparty and multijurisdictional. Frequently, they require the collaboration of several law firms on behalf of a client, along with the work of joint defense groups and industry legal teams. Morris James attorneys regularly facilitate, guide, and assist in these complex matters, allocate resources among participating firms, and utilize our technology investment to efficiently defend these claims.
We are experienced in defending against claims made by foreign plaintiffs, and are familiar with the forum, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and choice of law issues intrinsic to them.
Helping You Manage Costs
A long, drawn-out legal process can have almost as negative an effect as a liability decision against a company. At Morris James, we share our clients’ concerns for the management of costs throughout the litigation process. We work diligently with clients to manage eDiscovery and have crafted and obtained court approval of Lone Pine orders that manage and stage litigation to help our clients avoid needless expense.
Our current representations include representing Fortune 100 companies in defense of mass pesticide claims by foreign farmers, and the defense of a fitness equipment manufacturer in a personal injury claim.
Reported Cases
Bowen v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. Supr. 2006)
Bowen v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 879 A.2d 920 (Del. Supr. 2005)
Brown v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 820 A.2d 362 (Del. Supr. 2003)
Ison v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 729 A.2d 832 (Del. Supr. 1999)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Huang, 652 A.2d 568 (Del. Supr. 1995)
RegO Co., In re, 623 A.2d 92 (Del. Ch. 1992)
Wilson v. Triangle Oil Co., 566 A.2d 1016 (Del. Super. 1989)
Asbestos Litigation (Mergenthaler), In re, 542 A.2d 1205 (Del. Super. 1986)
Slover v. Fabtek, Inc., 517 A.2d 293 (Del. Super. 1986)
Trabaudo v. Kenton Ruritan Club, Inc., 517 A.2d 706 (Del. Super. 1986)
Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America, 500 A.2d 1357 (Del. Super. 1985)
Sheppard v. A.C. & S. Co., 498 A.2d 1126 (Del. Super. 1985)
Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America, 480 A.2d 647 (Del. Supr. 1984)
Nutt v. A.C. & S., Inc., 466 A.2d 18 (Del. Super. 1983)
Cline v. Prowler Industries of Maryland, Inc., 418 A.2d 968 (Del. Supr. 1980)
Unreported Cases
Barrios v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2091197 (Del. Super.)
Bowen v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 2005 WL 1952859 (Del. Super.)
Anderson v. Airco, Inc., 2004 WL 2827887 (Del. Super.)
Anderson v. Airco, Inc., 2004 WL 1874688 (Del. Super.)
Anderson v. Airco, Inc., 2004 WL 1551484 (Del. Super.)
Ison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 2004 WL 2827934 (Del. Super.)
Ison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 2002 WL 962205 (Del. Super.)
Betts v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 1992 WL 436727 (Del. Super.)
Betts v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 1992 WL 302288 (Del. Super.)
Lipscomb v. Champlain Cable Corp., 1988 WL 102966 (Del. Super.)
Halloran v. General Motors Corp., 1988 WL 39987 (Del. Super.)
Kee v. Allied Chemical Corp., 1986 WL 8007 (Del. Super.)
Slover v. Fabtek, 1986 WL 6600 (Del. Super.)
Slover v. Fabtek, Inc., 1986 WL 7993 (Del. Super.)
Slover v. Fabtek, Inc., 1986 WL 4252 (Del. Super.)
Kee v. Allied Chemical Corp., 1986 WL 2267 (Del. Super.)
Brozozowski v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 1985 WL 25724 (Del. Super.)
Niedzielski v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, Inc., 1985 WL 552194 (Del. Super.)
Slover v. Fabtek, Inc., 1985 WL 552281 (Del. Super.)
Berrios v. Wilkinson Match (USA), Inc., 1983 WL 413303 (Del. Super.)
Team
Attorney
News
- October 22, 2020
- August 21, 2020
- March 11, 2020
- May 4, 2018
- May 26, 2017Chambers USA
- December 14, 2016
- November 4, 2016
- May 27, 2016Chambers USA
Resources
Latest Blog Posts
Delaware Injury Law Blog
Publications
- 2007, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019
- 2007, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017
- February 11, 2015
- 2011