Bowman and Brooke Logo


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.

Consumer Products

At Bowman and Brooke, we take pride in over 30 years of defending thousands of product liability claims. Combining our trial-focused training and case management experience, we have a team of skilled lawyers to handle cases involving consumer products.

We defend manufacturers of a full range of consumer products—household appliances, food and tobacco, sports equipment and bicycles, power tools, child products, and more. Bowman and Brooke attorneys defend individual cases and mass tort attacks so our clients can do their job—develop and market their products.

As a national product defense firm, we understand the public perceptions and expectations regarding the responsibility of product manufacturers. Our lawyers draw on the insights gained through trials and motions practice to counsel clients on how to minimize the risk of future claims. Regulatory inquiries, requirements, recalls and testimonies are not new to us. At Bowman and Brooke, our cases routinely concern the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as related requirements and laws such as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). We help companies initiate effective compliance programs, claims department training programs, product safety warnings and labeling, warranty programs, and more.

  • Mar 13, 2013
    Minneapolis, MN
    In the Bayside Holdings, Ltd. v. Viracon, Inc., case, Bayside installed hurricane-resistant windows manufactured by our client Viracon. Shortly after installation of the windows, Bayside alleged cracking and delamination occurred in some of the windows. Nine years after it noticed the alleged defects, Bayside filed suit against Viracon alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and negligence.
  • Oct 28, 2010
    Broward County, FL
    Arthur William Rohr, Personal Representative for the Estate of Arthur Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In the second phase of the trial, after two days of deliberations, the jury assigned 100% of the fault for his injuries to the smoker based on his conscious, controlled and voluntary decision to smoke despite full knowledge of health risks and potential consequences.
  • Nov 20, 2009
    Boise, ID
    Plaintiff claimed millions in losses allegedly caused by defendant's milk byproduct sold as a feed ingredient for plaintiff's cattle-raising business, in this commercial/contract matter. The Boise, Idaho jury found that the defendant did not make promises the plaintiff was alleging, but instead delivered the product requested and promised to the plaintiff, and therefore was not responsible for damages.
  • Apr 29, 2009

    Kalyvas v. Philip Morris USA, Defense Verdict
    Surviving spouse of smoker sought damages as a potential member of Engle de-certified class of smokers in Hillsborough County, Florida. Plaintiff, through her attorney, Howard Acosta, sought $30 million dollars in compensatory damages and additional punitive damages for the death from lung cancer of Spyros Kalyvas. After a three-week trial and 6 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict finding that the plaintiff had not proven that addiction to Philip Morris cigarettes was a legal cause of decedent’s death.

  • Jul 25, 2007
    Mother of a brain-damaged five-year-old girl asked for $25 million dollars from a jury in Pinellas County, Florida after alleging that either a defect in the Ford or Evenflo child restraint, or combination of both, failed to properly restrain Kaitlyn McDonald, who was represented by James E. Carter of Georgia and Hugh N. Smith of Florida, during a severe frontal accident. Trial started on July 9, 2007 and ended on July 25, 2007. The jury delivered a complete defense verdict as to both defendants.
  • June 12, 2017
    Bowman and Brooke has been recognized by UK-based The Legal 500 for Product Liability, Mass Tort, and Class Action Defense excellence across multiple practice areas, including Motor Vehicles, Life Sciences, and Consumer Products. The firm saw significant gains in this year’s rankings; the Life Science practice landed in Band One for the first time and Consumer Products rose to Band Three, up from last year’s Band Four placement.
  • December 20, 2016
    As the regulatory landscape for drones continues to shift rapidly, Minneapolis Partner and private pilot Theodore Dorenkamp III prepares manufacturers to launch into the uncharted legal territory of a new wave of aviation litigation with his article, "The Rise of Commercial Drones: Emerging sUAS Manufacturer Concerns." Published in DRI's For the Defense, Ted suggests ways that drone manufacturers can help owners, operators, and the remote pilot in command comply with regulations. 
  • November 17, 2016

    On the heels of presenting a drone litigation webinar, Detroit Associate and FAA certified private pilot Matthew Berard once again spoke with Detroit Legal News on the evolution of drone law in 2016. Matthew talks about regulatory impact of FAA Part 107 which went into effect in August and looks to the horizon for what's next on the drone law front in 2017.

  • July 6, 2016
    For the ninth consecutive year, Bowman and Brooke LLP has been ranked as a preeminent product defense firm, according to recently-released 2016 United States rankings from The Legal 500.

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.

The Legal 500

Lauding the firm's "deep experience handling high-profile cases and class actions,"The Legal 500 ranks Bowman and Brooke as a top-tier firm in Automotive/Transport, Medical Device and Pharmaceutical and a recommended firm in Consumer Products.