Bowman and Brooke Logo

PRACTICES & 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.

                       

Bowman and Brooke possesses a dedicated product liability defense firm, fielding a deep trial bench. The firm is widely considered a market leader in the automotive industry, with a client list that features numerous leading manufacturers. Its broad practice also includes strength in areas such as medical devices and consumer products alongside activity in large-scale consumer class actions.

—Chambers USA, 2024

                 

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.
  • Mar 07, 2025
    Detroit, MI

    Following a five-week trial, a jury rendered a unanimous decision in favor of Mercedes-Benz in a product liability lawsuit alleging that a design defect in Plaintiffs’ 2015 Mercedes-Benz GL450 SUV caused a fire in the vehicle after Plaintiffs were struck at highway speed by a wrong-way drunk driver. Plaintiffs also claimed that the second-row seat release mechanism was defective. The accident ultimately resulted in the deaths of two of the family members and catastrophic injuries to a third. Mercedes-Benz and their counsel expressed their sincere sympathy to the Moore family regarding the tragic consequences of the accident. 

  • Nov 22, 2022
    Lake Charles, LA

    On November 22, 2022, after eight days of trial and 30 minutes of deliberations, a federal jury in Lake Charles, Louisiana agreed that Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. was not responsible for a boat explosion and fire that injured three men. The consolidated case, styled Gonzalez v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. was venued in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  

  • Oct 07, 2022
    Reno, NV

    A Washoe Nevada County jury found Caterpillar, Inc. and its loader vehicle were not responsible for the death of a miner. The case  involved a 2009 Load-Haul-Dump (LHD) designed and manufactured by Caterpillar, that rolled over a miner when he failed to secure the LHD by setting the parking brake and other means, which resulted in his death. 

  • Mar 29, 2022
    Montgomery, AL
    On March, 29, 2022, an Alabama jury unanimously agreed that Husqvarna and its riding mower were not responsible in the death of a lawncare maintenance worker. The case, Easterwood v Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., involved the overturn of a zero-turn radius (ZTR) mower down an embankment at a vacation resort that resulted in the death of the worker.
  • Mar 01, 2020
    Riverside, CA

    In a California trial involving allegations that a 2014 Ford Focus was a lemon and that Ford Motor Company concealed material facts from plaintiffs, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Greene entered an Order on September 24, 2020 awarding Ford $97,186.27 in costs from plaintiffs.  Much of the costs awarded were expert and travel costs.   The Court ruled that Ford was entitled to recover its outside expert fees because plaintiffs had declined a CCP 998 Offer from Ford.  The case is titled Leonila V. Ambriz and Erick Ambriz v. Ford Motor Company, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC1612390.  A defense verdict had been rendered on March 11, 2020 after 10 days of trial and 1 hour and 15 minutes of deliberations.    

  • May 20, 2026
    Legal Alert

    On May 18, 2026, Magistrate Judge Farrish of the District of Connecticut granted a motion to compel artificial intelligence prompts and/or queries used by a plaintiff’s expert or her team in the course of producing her expert witness report. Conservation L. Found., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., No. 3:21-cv-00933 (VDO) (D. Conn. May 18, 2026). Judge Farrish’s order appears to be the first order of its kind compelling a party to produce an expert witness’s AI prompts, and this order has potentially broad implications for all litigation should the outcome be adopted widely.

  • May 14, 2026
    Legal Alert

    On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court dropped a “jurisdictional anchor” for cases seeking confirmation or vacatur of arbitration awards in cases that were originally compelled to arbitration by a U.S. District Court under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
     
    The high court ruled in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties that cases compelled to arbitrate must be brought back to the same court for purposes of Section 9 motions to confirm and Section 10 motions to vacate. This eliminates delays and waste of judicial and party resources over disputes regarding which court may confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the FAA.

  • April 27, 2026
    News

    Partner Will Auther is featured in a recent Arizona Capitol Times article highlighting his years of service on the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR). Created in 1992 by an amendment to the state constitution, the commission develops performance standards and conducts reviews of merit-selected justices and judges who are subject to retention elections.

  • April 14, 2026
    News
    Leading legal industry news service Law360 has named Partner Angela L. Angotti to its 2026 Product Liability Advisory Board. Nominated and selected by the Law360 editorial staff, advisory board members across multiple jurisdictions and areas of law provide feedback on the publication’s coverage, as well as valuable insight to help shape future reporting and analysis.

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.