Bowman and Brooke Logo

PRACTICES & INDUSTRIES

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.

Toxic Torts and Environmental Litigation

test tubes with clear substance toxic tort

Bowman and Brooke is a toxic tort defense powerhouse, defending global manufacturers in exposure and contamination claims in state and federal trial and appellate courts coast to coast. We defend our clients aggressively, bringing to bear our extensive knowledge, skill and resources effectively and efficiently at every stage of the case.  With more than 30 years of litigation experience and knowledge serving in national, regional and other lead counsel roles, we have the experience required for confidence in risk assessments and proficiency in medical and regulatory issues that provide clients with diverse and comprehensive services and cost-effective results.

The cases we defend often involve allegations of cancer, birth defects, and major organ diseases (e.g., diseases of the lungs, liver, kidneys and central nervous system), as well as other chronic and acute injuries allegedly resulting from inhalation, dermal, ocular and ingestion exposures. We have a great deal of experience defending against multiple chemical sensitivity claims. We have argued significant Daubert motions based on “junk science.” We have mastered the law and the science, and exploit them to the benefit of our clients.

The outcome of toxic tort cases turns upon science and reasoned application of the law to the facts of each particular case. Combining our courtroom prowess with the scientific and technical expertise of world-renowned experts, we have defended a wide variety of claims from asbestos to benzene to CERCLA and waste water.

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.
  • Apr 22, 2015
    Pottawattamie County , IA

    An Iowa trial court granted summary judgment for Navistar, Inc., finding that the vehicle manufacturer did not owe a duty to warn with respect to safe use of replacement vehicle component parts manufactured and sold by others. This case arises out of Plaintiff’s claim that David Foote suffered injuries and eventually died as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing products.

  • Nov 10, 2014
    Winkler County, TX
    In January of 2011, Randy Rossell, an electrician at a gas plant in Texas, was severely burned when a compressor at the plant exploded during startup. Mr. Rossell claimed that Siemens Energy, Inc. was responsible for the explosion, arguing that Siemens failed to conduct a thorough hazard analysis. He alleged that the company didn't take reasonable steps to form a standard-compliant safety program that could have prevented the explosion.

  • Dec 30, 2013
    New York, NY

    On December 30, 2013, Judge Scheindlin from the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment motions brought by two defendants in this toxic torts litigation.  The Court held that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's claims, including environmental claims seeking abatement, were time barred under Puerto Rico's one year statute of limitations on torts—despite plaintiff’s argument that sovereign immunity allowed it to pursue claims beyond the statute of limitations.

  • Oct 14, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA

    A California jury returned an 11-1 defense verdict in favor of Nissan North America, Inc. in the case Steiner v. Nissan. After 35 days at trial, Nissan claimed their first asbestos trial defense verdict, proving that plaintiff Richard Steiner's lung cancer was a result of smoking, not of exposure to asbestos-containing friction products. Judge Thomas Anderle presided over the trial.

  • 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.

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.