Christopher N. Santoro: Lawyer with Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.

Christopher N. Santoro

Christopher N. Santoro is a shareholder with Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. His practice is devoted largely to toxic tort, products liability, motor vehicle, construction law, medical malpractice, property damage, personal injury, and premises liability litigation.
Phone(215) 575-2589

Peer Rating
 5.0/5.0
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & Reviews
 

Practice Areas

  • Environmental & Toxic Tort
  • Product Liability
  • Motor Vehicle
  • Architects / Engineers / Construction Law
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Property Damage
  • Personal Injury
  • Premises Liability
 
University La Salle University, B.A., cum laude, 1981
 
Law SchoolTemple University School of Law, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, J.D., 1984
 
Admitted1984, Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
 
Memberships 

Associations & Memberships

•American Bar Association
•American Board of Trial Advocates, Diplomat
•Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Pennsylvania Defense Institute
•Philadelphia Bar Association

 
Biography

Chris has over 30 years of litigation experience handling major casualty, toxic tort, and product liability matters. He has significant experience in handling toxic tort matters involving exposure to alleged hazardous substances and has successfully defended major corporations in hundreds of cases at the trial level. Since joining Marshall Dennehey in 2002, Chris has expanded his practice to handling matters involving asbestos, silica, vinyl chloride, benzene, lead, cadmium, legionella, various dusts, lubricants, and other allegedly hazardous materials. He continues to be an active trial lawyer and has tried over 150 jury trials to verdict.

Chris began his career as an associate at Krusen Evans & Byrne and settled upon a defense practice focusing on product liability, personal injury, property damage, and toxic tort matters. He gained experience handling a wide variety of matters and tried numerous jury trials to verdict.

In 1989, Chris was instrumental in forming a firm that concentrated in toxic tort matters, and the firm quickly established itself as one of the leading firms in asbestos litigation. He served as the managing partner for eleven years.The firm rapidly grew under his leadership. It was during this time that Chris concentrated his practice in the field of toxic torts and quickly became one of the most active and successful toxic tort trial lawyers. Representing Owens Corning, he served as lead trial counsel in the Philadelphia area asbestos litigation. In addition, he participated in the development of strategies and techniques for the handling of complex, multi-party toxic tort litigation.

While at Marshall Dennehey, Chris has tried numerous cases to verdict with all but two (2) resulting in defense verdicts.One plaintiff's verdict was overturned by the Pennsylvania Superior Court and the grant of a new trial affirmed by an En Banc Panel of thePennsylvania Superior Court.

At the request of various clients, Chris has organized and/or given presentations at various seminars. In addition, he has lectured on a variety of topics involving trial techniques and has participated in numerous CLE seminars.

Classes/Seminars Taught

Defending Household Exposure Cases, Mealey's National Asbestos SuperConference, Phoenix, AZ, September 2008

Defending Toxic Tort Cases, AIG Environmental Unit, New York, NY, November 2007

Silca Litigation and Assembly Line Diagnosing, AIG Domestic Claims Toxic Tort Unit, May 2006

Opening Statements, Marshall Dennehey Trial Advocacy Class, May 2006

Trying The Automobile Brake Case, Goodyear Tire & Rubber National Counsel Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 2005

Cross Examination, Marshall Dennehey Trial Advocacy Class, October 2005 and October 2006

Published Works

•Tooey Is Not Just a Bunch of “Hooey”- Practical Tactics for Defending an Employer in the Realm of Toxic Tort Litigation, Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2014, co-author

•The Dose Is the Poison --The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Questions the 'Each and Every Breath' or 'Any Exposure' Theory, Defense Digest, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2008

•Assumption of Risk in Product Liability, Counterpoint, April 1989

Honors & Awards
•American Board of Trial Advocates
•AV Preeminent by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
•Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Hearing Committee Member
•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, 2006-2007

Year Joined Organization

2002

Publications

Tooey Is Not Just a Bunch of “Hooey”- Practical Tactics for Defending an Employer in the Realm of Toxic Tort Litigation
Defense Digest Article•September 1, 2014
By Christopher N. Santoro, Esq. and Christine P. Dower, Esq.*Key Points:Since Tooey, which allowed employees who develop latent occupational diseases to file common law actions against employers, litigation against employers in..., Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2014 Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide...

 
Reported CasesRepresentative Cases: O'Kane v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc., 1988 WL 54024 (Fed Dist Low ATL PA 3 1988); Golden v. Williard Co., 521 Pa. 528, 557 A.2d (1989); Bittinger v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 1986 WL 14195 (E.D.Pa 1986); Significant Representative Matters: Defense verdicts for welding rod manufacturers in cases involving alleged exposure to asbestos, including: Defense verdict for a welding rod manufacturer following a two week trial in Philadelphia County before Judge Ramy I. Djerassi.The plaintiff alleged her decedent husband, who died at the age of 77, contracted lung cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos from welding rods manufactured by our clients.The decedent was a former smoker, quitting 50 years ago but he was diagnosed with emphysema.The jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating for 50 minutes.( The Estate of Stephen Matkowsky v. Airco ).; Defense verdict for a manufacturer of welding supplies following a trial before Judge Ramy I. Djerassi in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.The plaintiff alleged her decedent husband, who died at the age of 59, contracted colon cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos from welding blankets manufactured by our client.The defense argued that there is no medical or scientific causation between asbestos exposure and colon cancer and that it was the decedent's family history of colon cancer and lack of screening which caused his condition.The jury of 12 returned a unanimous defense verdict.( The Estate of Louis Goll v. Airco ).; Defense verdict in a jury trial before Judge Esther Sylvester in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.The 72 year old living plaintiff claimed he developed lung cancer as a result of working with welding rods manufactured by Lincoln Electric Company, Hobart Brothers and Airco.As a result of his cancer, the plaintiff had his left lung removed and had multiple post operative complications.The defendants claimed that their welding rods did not release asbestos fibers and their products did not contribute to the plaintiff's lung cancer.The jury was charged that if they found that the defendants' products contained asbestos that, as a matter of law, they must find that the product was defective.After two hours of deliberations, the jury in a 10 to 2 decision, found that all three of the defendants' products contained asbestos, but that they were not defective. ( Donald Dimmick v. Airco ).; Defense verdict in a case tried before Judge John Herron, Administrative Judge of the Complex Litigation Center in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.Plaintiff alleged her decedent husband contracted lung cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos from welding rods manufactured by Lincoln Electric Company and Hobart Brothers, while welding when he worked as a maintenance mechanic.Plaintiff was 70 years old when he died.The defense was that welding rods to not release free asbestos fibers and that the decedent's lung cancer was caused by his heavy history of smoking cigarettes.The jury returned a defense verdict in 22 minutes.( The Estate of Stephen Fitzpatrick v. Lincoln Electric Company ).; Defense verdict in a case tried before Judge Norman Ackerman in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.Plaintiff contended he was symptomatic with shortness of breath and had pulmonary function abnormalities as a result of pleural plaques he developed while working with asbestos containing welding rods.The case was tried reverse bifurcated and during the first phase the defense argued that pleural plaques are a benign condition that do not cause symptoms.The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $150,000 and $0 on the spouse's loss of consortium claim.During the second phase the defense argued that welding rods do not release respirable fibers and any asbestos related condition the plaintiff developed was caused by exposure to other asbestos containing products.At the conclusion of phase II, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense. ( David Myers v. Lincoln Electric Compan y).; Defense verdict in a case tried before Judge George Overton in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,involving a 71year old gentleman who worked as a plumber and auto mechanic and did welding several hours a week over a 25 year period.He contended that he developed mesothelioma and died as result of his work with welding rods which contained asbestos.The case was tried reverse bifurcated and the defense did not dispute that the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos in the first phase of the case.The jury returned a damage verdict of $365,000.In theliability phase of the trial, the welding rod defendants were the only defendants that chose todefend their product and contended that weldingrods do not release asbestos fibers that are respirable and the mesothelioma was caused by extensive exposure to asbestos insulation products and not welding rods.Both phases of the case took two weeks to tryand at the conclusion of the second phase of the case, the jury returned adefense verdict after deliberating just 30 minutes. ( Estate of Rollin Bankes v. Hobart Brothers ).; Defense verdictin a case tried before Judge EugeneMaier in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas involving a 63 year old Septa mechanic who contended that he developed lung cancerand died as a result of working with welding rods which contained asbestos.The defense contended that the lung cancer was caused by the decedents long history of smoking, including continuing to smoke after he was diagnosed with the lung cancer.The case was tried reverse bifurcatedandafter 40 minutes the jury returned a verdict for the defenseafter the first phase of the case.( Orlando Williams v. Airco ).; Defense verdict after a three week jury trial in front of Judge Stephen Baratta in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas.Plaintiff alleged that he had developed mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung that is almost exclusively caused by asbestos, as a result of working with welding rods manufactured by our client The Lincoln Electric Company.Plaintiff was 80 years old at the time of trial.The theory was that the flux coating on welding rods whenmanipulated released respirable asbestos fibers into the air which the plaintiff inhaled over many years while working as a steamfitter from 1950's until the 1970's.On the eve of trial, plaintiff produced two cans of Lincoln asbestos containing welding rods that he contended were removed from a jobsite over thirty years ago and stored in his garage.Lincoln's defense was that because the asbestos in the flux coating is encapsulated in a sodium silicate binder that it was not possible that fibers of the proper size and shape could be released and inhaled by the plaintiff.In support of the defense anexpert witness in fracture mechanics from MIT was called, as well as a certified industrial hygienist and a pulmonology expert.After deliberating for about seven hours, the jury returned an unanimous verdict in favor of Lincoln.( Michael Messinger v. Lincoln Electric Company ).; Other representative matters: Dooley v. Bondex .Reverse bifurcated trial before Judge Victor DiNubile in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.Plaintiff/Decedent died at the age of 84 as a result of pleural mesothelioma he alleged was caused by his work with asbestos containing products, including Bondex joint compound, primarily while performing home repairs and renovations.The decedent was a high ranking union official with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 454.Plaintiff's counsel made a mid six figure demand prior to trial.A favorable settlement was reached while the jury was deliberating after phase I when plaintiff's counsel accepted what had been offered prior to trial.; Davis v. Goodyear. Obtained a defense verdict for Goodyear Tire and Rubber, after a three week jury trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Stephen Levin.Plaintiff contended that he developed lung cancer and asbestosis as a result of working with asbestos containing brakes that he allegedly purchased at Goodyear service centers over a period of many years.Plaintiff had surgery in 2003 where half of his lung was removed.He was 72 years old at the time of trial and plaintiff's expert pulmonologist opined that the plaintiff's prognosis was poor and most likely would not survive five years after the surgery.Goodyear contended that plaintiff could not have purchased brakes from them, because they were not a retailer of automotive parts and do not sell to the general public.Rather, they operate service centers where they install all parts that they sell.During the first phase of the reverse bifurcated trial, the defense contended that plaintiff did not have asbestosis and his lung cancer was caused by a long cigarette smoking history, although the plaintiff had stopped smoking 10 years before his diagnosis.After deliberating for two days, the jury returned a defense verdict.It was the first asbestos case in the country where Goodyear had gone to verdict.; Roth v. Kaiser Gypsum. Plaintiff contended that he developed and died as a result developing pleural mesothelioma from working with various asbestos containing product including wall board manufactured by Kaiser Gypsum.The case was tried reverse bifurcated before Judge Alex Bonivitacola in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.Plaintiff's counsel settlement demand was in the low six figures with approximately ten shares in the case.After phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $200,000.A favorable settlement was reached after phase I.; Bednar v. DAP. Defense verdict obtained in a trial before Judge Ricardo Jackson in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas .Plaintiff alleged that he developed and died at the age of 43 as a result of peritoneal mesothelioma.It was contended that the decedent was exposed to various asbestos containing products, including asbestos containing caulk manufactured by DAP, which were a substantial factor in the cause of the decedent's disease.The defense contended that the chrysotile asbestos to which plaintiff was exposed was not a cause of the peritoneal mesothelioma.The case was tried reverse bifurcated and after phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, finding that the decedent's mesothelioma was not caused by his asbestos exposure.; Engro v. Pep Boys. In a reverse bifurcated trial, tried before Judge Richard Glazer in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas it was contended that the decedent contracted pleural mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while performing brake changes on his personal vehicles.It was alleged that the brakes were purchased at various Pep Boys' stores.Prior to trial plaintiff's counsel issued a mid-six figure settlement demand.After phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $400,000.A favorable settlement was reached after phase I.
 
ISLN904043851
 

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com

Subscribe to this feed

Tooey Is Not Just A Bunch Of “Hooey”— Practical Tactics for Defending an Employer in The Realm of Toxic Tort Litigation
Christine P. Dower,Christopher N. Santoro, September 30, 2014
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling in Tooey v. A.K. Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2013) represents a significant shift in Pennsylvania law. In the wake of Tooey, new companies are being targeted and new theories of liability are being raised in toxic tort cases filed throughout the...


View Ratings & Reviews
Profile Visibility
#1,237 in weekly profile views out of 17,105 lawyers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#107,676 in weekly profile views out of 1,684,342 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Christopher N. Santoro

2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
PhiladelphiaPA 19103




Loading...
 

Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now