A Federal District Court in South Carolina accepted our argument that our client, a corporation, had no duty under the facts presented to supervise the off-duty use of a company car and company telephone by an employee involved in a fatal collision with two bicyclists. The court also granted summary judgment on one plaintiff’s survival claim, finding that a plaintiff showing no signs of consciousness post-accident had insufficient time to form an appreciation of impending death. Rob Joyce and Bob Littleton represented the dismissed company.
A Federal District Court in New York denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of our client. The court agreed with our client’s arguments on all points when it denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses from the answer and dismissed the quantum meruit and theft of intellectual property claims against our client.
Rob is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Virginia Law School. For the past 25 years he has been a corporate litigator at Patterson Belknap, defending prescription drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, food products and consumer appliances for domestic and global clients at the trial and appellate levels. Mr. Wilson currently serves as national coordinating counsel for two major pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as a major cosmetics company Mr. Wilson has extensive experience in complex product liability, class action, MDL and mass tort litigation including the development of defense strategies, supervision of the discovery process and organizing and coordinating the defense of multiple concurrent lawsuits throughout the country involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices. He can be reached through our Purchase Office.
Following a lengthy trial, Jin Park, Michael Bai and Wendy Shepps secured a defense verdict and recovered costs in a products liability action involving an allegedly defective light fixture.
The Purchase and New Jersey Offices secured a dismissal on the pleadings for our client, an electronics manufacturer. A homeowner alleged that a retailer sold him a home automation system that was incompatible with his home. The homeowner alleged that the retailer was an agent of our client and that our client negligently failed to educate the retailer. Although our client’s website listed the retailer as an outlet for our client’s products, we satisfied the court that our client made no representations as to the retailer’s judgment and that our client had no general duty to educate every retailer of its products. |
