What we do
Products Liability & Toxic Torts
During our more than 30 year history, Hurrell Cantrall LLP and its predecessor firms have defended multi-national corporations in simple and complex litigation involving products liability and toxic torts.
In particular, we have been extensively involved in the defense of claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to alleged toxic exposure to asbestos, benzene, mold, paint, airborne particles, and dietary supplements (such as Phen-Fen).
Our firm has represented manufacturers and distributors of a wide variety of products, including agricultural, automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical, and paint products, as well as hand tools, medical devices, and other products alleged to have been defectively designed and manufactured.
In addition, our attorneys have developed specialized expertise in the area of lemon law. We have represented and defended numerous automobile manufacturers in such cases, many resulting in early resolution through negotiations.
Illustrative Cases
-
Defense verdict in a toxic tort action based upon the alleged severe neurological injuries suffered by plaintiff from three days of exposure to our client’s chemical product.
-
Defense verdict in a case where employees sued the owner of their office building after a series of plumbing leaks and floods allegedly exposed them to toxic mold. Plaintiffs also alleged that such exposure caused them to suffer numerous injuries, including asthma, memory loss, fatigue, Hepatitis C and multiple sclerosis. At trial, the jury found no credible evidence of causation.
-
Defense prevailed after a two-week trial alleging that chemicals manufactured by our client caused an aerospace employee to contract Systemic Sclerosis, a fatal disease of the nervous system. We successfully argued that there was no demonstrably causal connection between the chemical and the disease.
-
Summary judgment granted in a case where plaintiff sued a paint manufacturer alleging toxic exposure to benzene from paint caused his leukemia. The trial judge agreed with our argument that the paint was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s disease.
-
Defense verdict in a case where an aerospace worker was allegedly exposed to 1,1,1 trichlorethane developed Scleroderma and died. The family sued the manufacturer. We obtained a defense verdict on the basis of plaintiff’s lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that the product caused the disease.
-
Dismissal in a case where plaintiffs alleged that the decedent was exposed to defendants’ asbestos and asbestos-containing products while working as an aviation electronics technician at various naval air stations in the United States Navy from approximately 1967 to 1975, causing him to develop asbestos cancer and malignant mesothelioma. We represented one of the entities that allegedly manufactured and supplied the asbestos-containing products. We negotiated a dismissal based on lack of product identification in discovery.
-
Voluntary dismissal on a matter that arose from plaintif's allegations he developed asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease, as a result of exposure to asbestos and asbestos-related products throughout the course of his career as a painter from 1954 to 2000. We represented a products manufacturer. We filed a motion for summary judgment and shortly thereafter plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action as to our client.
Let Us Develop a Proposal for Your Litigation Needs.
We are committed to offering quality and cost-effective legal services with one goal in mind--resolving disputes in a manner consistent with each client's unique goals and circumstances.
Learn More