Bowman and Brooke Logo


While our firm is best known for defending automobile manufacturers, our lawyers counsel an array of Global 500 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.

  • Feb 17, 2017
    Van Nuys, CA

    After a trial lasting more than a month in Van Nuys, California, a jury delivered a unanimous and complete defense verdict in less than an hour on behalf of Ford Motor Company on February 17, 2017 in the case of Micaela and Donald Bensko v. Ford Motor Company.  Plaintiffs sought in excess of $23,000,000 in damages allegedly caused by a defect in their 2011 Ford Flex.  Specifically, it was alleged that the design of the power liftgate on the Ford Flex created an unreasonably dangerous condition. 

  • 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.

  • June 7, 2023
    For the 16th year in a row, Bowman and Brooke has achieved national rankings in The Legal 500. The firm is named to all four Product Liability Defense categories—Automotive, Consumer, Pharmaceutical/Medical Device and Toxic Tort. Additionally, many individual attorneys are recognized.
  • October 18, 2022

    Amanda has been named as one of two new PLAC Sustaining Members. Sustaining Members are leaders in the regulatory, commercial litigation and appellate areas of the law and are personally invited to join PLAC. An up and coming leader and mentor to the firm’s junior attorneys, Amanda’s PLAC appointment comes following recognition by The Legal 500 in 2022 when she was named in Litigation: Product Liability Defense, Consumer Products for the third year in a row and identified as a Next Generation Partner: Product Liability Defense, Consumer Products.

  • June 10, 2022

    For the 15th year in a row, Bowman and Brooke has achieved national rankings by The Legal 500. The firm is named to all four Product Liability Defense categories—Automotive, Consumer, Pharmaceutical/Medical Device and Toxic Tort. Additionally, more than a dozen individual attorneys are recognized. 

  • December 16, 2021

    Product liability litigation and regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere are increasingly becoming intertwined. Product liability incidents, claims, and lawsuits can generate investigations by the government, possibly resulting in recalls and civil penalties. And, investigations, recalls, and civil penalties can generate product liability and other lawsuits, such as shareholder derivative actions, and contribute to findings of liability.

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.