Practice Areas & Industries: Morris Polich & Purdy LLP

 





Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

One of the nation’s leading products liability law specialist firms, Morris Polich & Purdy has represented clients as national, regional and local counsel in both state and federal courts, and has directed litigation in a large number of venues and jurisdictions. Our practice ranges from matters involving a single product in a single suit, to class actions, coordinated litigation, and ‘mass tort’ litigation. We approach each case individually and work with our clients to design a strategy that will successfully terminate litigation while simultaneously preserving their specific business objectives.

We represent manufacturers, distributors, and retail sellers of a broad variety of product types:

  • Consumer goods
  • Industrial equipment and machinery
  • Automobiles and automobile components
  • High-tech devices and electronics
  • Medical devices and pharmaceuticals
  • Food products
  • Herbal and dietary supplements
  • Chemicals
  • Building materials
  • Water transport systems
  • Exercise and weight equipment
  • Personal care products

Although we pride ourselves as experienced and highly successful trial attorneys, we always strive to bring about a quick and favorable resolution in all cases, many times before a lawsuit is filed. We also provide prospective advice to our clients, in order to prevent or minimize future litigation.

A CROSS SECTION OF OUR EXPERIENCE

  • We obtained a defense jury verdict in a products liability and negligence action involving a Honda motorcycle which had been specially adapted by our client for use as a camera bike for movies, television shows and commercials.
     
  • We obtained a defense verdict in a crane case involving orthopedic and neurologic injuries. Plaintiff alleged that the accident was caused by a defective braking system on a 100-ton truck crane being utilized on a major freeway rebuilding project following the Northridge earthquake.
     
  • We obtained a defense verdict in a defective paint case alleging defects when the paint was applied to numerous commercial cargo trucks.
     
  • We obtained a defense verdict for a national fast-food chain in a case involving allegations that the plaintiff contracted H. pylori from food served at the restaurant.
     
  • We succeeded in obtaining dismissal of our client, a trailer parts company, which allegedly modified a forklift improperly, thereby resulting in serious injuries to the plaintiff.
     
  • We represented a company that installed an electric security door that allegedly failed, resulting in crush injuries to an elderly plaintiff as she was attempting to enter her apartment complex. We were able to secure a voluntary dismissal for our client.
     
  • We obtained a defense verdict in an asbestos personal injury case involving two plasterers who claimed that they contracted an asbestos-related disease from exposure to stucco products.
     
  • Our client, a company that provided an 80' boomlift to Plaintiff's employer, was dismissed from a case involving numerous fractures and internal injuries suffered while Plaintiff was working on a project at Edwards Air Force Base. Plaintiff alleged that the basket of the lift apparently lurched, crushing him between the lift's control panel and a steel girder.
     
  • Our client, the manufacturer of a metal punch press, which was sued after Plaintiff punched holes in his hand while operating the press, was dismissed.
     
  • We obtained summary judgment in United States District Court in favor of a foreign horticultural research company that was sued by its California growers for breach of warranty in connection with the launch of a new type of kiwi fruit.
     
  • We obtained an outright dismissal of a Federal Court breach of warranty case on behalf of a German/U.S. marine engine manufacturer.
     
  • We represent a design-build contractor in a products liability case involving an accident on the Angels Flight Railway in Downtown Los Angeles.
     
  • A case involving serious burns suffered by an independent contractor while operating allegedly defective dairy processing equipment was successfully resolved.
     
  • We serve as Southern California counsel for a manufacturer of water hoses for washing machines and other consumer appliances, defending hundreds of claims arising from alleged defects.
     
  • Our attorneys have been retained by a manufacturer of exercise equipment in several cases involving injuries occurring to gym members.
     
  • We negotiated an extremely favorable settlement in representing the manufacturer of a "tilt and recline" seating system for wheelchairs, when it was alleged that the quadriplegic purchaser of the wheelchair had suffered horrendous skin ulcerations and pressure sores due to design defects in the chair.
     
  • A favorable settlement was reached on behalf of a manufacturer of a cast iron locking hook, utilized on safety harnesses for roofers and ironworkers, which allegedly failed during a worker's fall from the roof of a commercial project.
     
  • We represent three major automobile manufacturers in breach of warranty cases, and have tried several to verdict.
     
  • In a case alleging that both an automobile accident and the driver’s subsequent heart attack were caused by a defect in the car’s design, we reached a "nuisance-value" settlement representing barely 5% of the original demand.
     
  • We serve as Southern California counsel for a stucco manufacturer, defending personal injury and wrongful death claims alleging exposure to asbestos.
     
  • We serve as California counsel for a pump manufacturer, defending personal injury and wrongful death claims alleging exposure to asbestos.

 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

California Appellate Court Rejects “One Size Fits All” Approach to Product Liability
, August 01, 2013
Applying a recent decision by the state Supreme Court, a California appellate court recently found that a manufacturer has no duty to warn about the risks associated with another manufacturer’s product, despite the fact the two products are “compatible” and may be used together....