Bowman and Brooke Logo

PRACTICES & INDUSTRIES

While our firm is best known for defending automobile manufacturers, our lawyers counsel an array of Global 500 and internationally-based clients in high-stakes, national litigation in a range of industries.

Product Liability Litigation

Broken link in a chain

Bowman and Brooke has defended thousands of wrongful death, catastrophic personal injury and other product liability claims brought against motor vehicle, chemical, construction, drug and medical device, heavy equipment and recreational equipment manufacturers. Day in and day out, we challenge well-financed plaintiff attorneys in locales unfriendly to business interests across the country. Through intensive preparation, creative presentation and persuasion, we become your advocates in both the courtroom and at the bargaining table.

                       

What the team is known for: Impressive trial bench with broad capabilities in the automobile space, representing major clients in bet-the-company litigation. Growing profile in other industry sectors, with notable highlights in toxic tort and medical device product liability.

—Chambers USA, 2015

                 

We tailor our advocacy to your needs. Our legal teams develop a personal knowledge and appreciation of your organization’s business and culture as well as your product design, testing and quality control procedures. We develop a deep understanding of the technical and scientific principles applicable to your products. We field a team of trial lawyers, paralegals, investigators and experts devoted to your case from start to finish. We individualize our communication with you, the in-house lawyers and engineers who provide critical perspectives, experiences and skills to the defense team.

CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE.
  • Aug 25, 2016
    St. Lucie County, FL
    A unanimous defense verdict was returned by a Florida jury in favor of Takata Corp., TK Holdings, Inc., and Michelin North America Inc. on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 after a two-month, $80M trial involving allegations of tire and seat belt defects.
  • Apr 21, 2016
    Orange County, CA
    During a trial in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, a judge granted a motion of non-suit in favor of Breg, Inc. in a case involving a Breg Pain Care 3000 pain pump. William Stovall v. Breg, Inc., Superior Court of California, for the County of Orange – Civil Complex Center, Case No. 37-2011-00059728, Judge William Claster presiding.
  • Apr 08, 2016
    St. Louis, MO
    On April 08, 2016, a Missouri federal jury ruled in favor of the defense, finding that a 2004 GMC Savana, which was involved in a rollover crash that left the driver quadriplegic, did not bear a roof or seat belt defect. In Roberts v. General Motors LLC, the plaintiff sought $10 million in damages, claiming the roof of the vehicle was "unreasonably dangerous" because it should have been designed to withstand impacts from such rollover accidents, and that the seat belt system should have kept the plaintiff in place during the accident. The jury found no defect or negligence on the part of General Motors. 
  • Mar 24, 2016
    Orlando, FL
    On Thursday, March 24, at the conclusion of a two-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. finding the Road Star Silverado motorcycle was not defectively designed or unreasonably dangerous. 
  • Oct 13, 2015
    Missoula, MT

    At the conclusion of a seven-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, a jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Mazda, finding “no defect” in the design of the front passenger restraint system of Mazda’s 1994 Protegé. In closing arguments, Plaintiff’s counsel had asked the jury for up to $7.26 million. Speaks v. Mazda Motor Corp. et al., No. 9:14-cv-00025, Judge Dana L. Christensen presiding.

  • June 20, 2017
    Legal Alert
    The United States Supreme Court established clear separation between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction in a June 19, 2017 ruling that prevents nonresident plaintiffs from asserting specific jurisdiction in a State with no connection to their injury. The ruling reversed a 2016 California Supreme Court decision that applied a “sliding scale approach” to find specific jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) for nonresident plaintiffs’ claims where BMS had unrelated contacts with the forum. The United States Supreme Court found that exercising specific personal jurisdiction over BMS for the nonresidents’ claims in California violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • June 19, 2017
    Articles
    Minneapolis Partner Michael Carey collaborated with several experts from Exponent Inc. to author an article for Thompson Reuters Expert Analysis  on "Drivers and the Driverless Vehicle Revolution: Understanding the Changing Role of the Driver." 
  • June 13, 2017
    Legal Alert

    In an important ruling for class action litigants, the Supreme Court held yesterday in Microsoft v. Baker that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review orders denying class certification following voluntary dismissal with prejudice by the plaintiffs. The ruling reversed a Ninth Circuit decision, Baker v. Microsoft, 797 F.3d 607 (9th Cir. 2015), and resolved a circuit split. It also puts an end to the practice of plaintiffs voluntarily dismissing their claims following denial of class certification in order to “manufacture” an appealable final judgment. The decision is a positive development for class action defendants, as plaintiffs can no longer circumvent the final-judgment rule to take immediate appeals of orders denying certification.

  • June 9, 2017
    Legal Alert

    In the wake of a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision holding that Michigan healthcare providers lack standing to sue insurers for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, providers and state courts are simply befuddled.

    In Covenant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Michigan’s high court overruled a series of Michigan Court of Appeals decisions and held that, “the plain language of the no-fault act” does not state “that a healthcare provider possesses a statutory cause of action against a no-fault insurer,” Justice Brian K. Zahra wrote. The impact on Michigan No-Fault claims will be widespread and is favorable for insurers and self-insured companies allowing employees to drive company-owned vehicles.

  • October 13, 2016
    Webinars

    The 3D printing boom in the last several years has sweeping implications for the future of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. With the enormous potential 3D printed products have in the life sciences, there are equally as many unknowns regarding risk and liability throughout the supply chain.

Integrated Services

In addition to providing stellar legal counsel, we integrate our provision of other key services with the work of our legal teams. The result? Highly effective and efficient client service.

Law360 Product Liability Group of the Year

Bowman and Brooke was recognized for the seventh time as a Law360 Product Liability Practice Group of the Year for its "versatility" and "long-established reputation as a defense leader."  

Chambers USA

Bowman and Brooke was ranked by Chambers USA for the fifth consecutive year in the Nationwide Product Liability & Mass Tort category, recognized for its "[d]eep trial bench with experience trying cases across the country." (2016)