Product Liability

Experienced
guidance

Overview
Experience
Professionals
Insights
Related Services

Overview

To successfully defend clients in trials often spanning weeks at a time, product liability matters require proven and exceptional litigation skills. As all cases are not created equally, flexibility and adaptability are paramount of effective representation in product matters.

Whether it’s critical, complex product litigation or issues relating to insurance, an individualized focus on the matter at hand is required when it comes to product liability. Our Product Liability Practice, with offices throughout the Southeast, nourishes local relationships with bench and bar members in all of the areas that we serve. These connections allow us to provide accurate assessments of litigation outcomes involving liability claims and suits.

Our attorneys serve as counsel for product manufacturers, statewide and regionally, in matters covering everything from car / boat / ATV and their component part manufacturers, to all manufacturers of various types of machinery and construction products. This vast array of clients gives our attorneys the opportunity to provide a high-touch level of service and flex their skills in driving solutions to bring the matter to completion.

Experience

Defended successfully through verdict four multi-week trials alleging design defects in single and multi-car automobile accidents over a two-year span.
Obtained the grant of summary judgment from the South Carolina Supreme Court on behalf of a major automotive manufacturer. The appellant in this product liability case alleged that the manufacturer breached certain warranties by installing automotive side window glazing that shattered upon impact and failed to retain vehicle occupants in a rollover collision. In support of its summary judgment motion, the automaker argued the appellant's common law claims were preempted because they conflicted and interfered with the intent of Congress to provide a range of automotive glass / glazing options as codified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205. After reviewing opinions that had both upheld and rejected federal preemption in this context, the court agreed that the more persuasive opinions were those that recognized preemption, and thus the court held that permitting Appellant's case to go forward would "stand as an obstacle to achieving the purposes and objectives of Regulation 205." Priester v. Cromer, et al., 388 S.C. 425 (2010)