Joseph V. Lesinski

Significant Representative Matters: Successful defense in $30 million product liability trial. Obtained major defense result for our client in a product liability lawsuit where the Plaintiff's final pre-trial demand was $22 million and claimed exposure exceeded $30 million. The dispute arose after Plaintiff alleged compressor systems designed and sold by our client caused weld debris to migrate downstream, damaging filtration devices and allowing excess lubricating oil into a natural gas pipeline, which allegedly led to multimillion-dollar losses at a power plant. Through material testing and expert testimony, we established that the weld debris claim was unfounded and that Plaintiff's own design decisions, inadequate maintenance, equipment failures, and poor system response were the more likely causes of the contamination. Based on this evidence, Plaintiff was unable to meet its burden of proof. Our client paid nothing to resolve the case despite the significant exposure.; Obtained a defense verdict in an automobile liability jury trial on behalf of an international oilfield services company and its employee. The employee was operating a semi-trailer truck while hauling 40,000 pounds of drilling equipment. The plaintiff alleged that she was rear-ended by the truck while attempting to merge onto the highway at a cloverleaf intersection. The plaintiff's passenger vehicle was pushed off the highway and rolled multiple times. Through the testimony of an accident reconstruction expert, Joe effectively established that the plaintiff had come to a complete stop on the side of the highway while attempting to merge and had pulled out in front of the truck just seconds prior to impact, obtaining a maximum speed of only 25 mph. The jury returned a verdict finding the plaintiff at fault for the accident.; Secured an insignificant damage award in a premises liability jury trial involving a large daycare facility. Plaintiffs, the parents of a minor child at the time of the incident, argued that the daycare was negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision of their child. The child, who was 4 months old at the time of the incident, was bitten on the face by an older child while the care provider momentarily left the room to obtain a stroller.; Obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of a well head manufacturer in a products liability matter. The plaintiff drill-operator alleged that the well head was defectively designed, causing oil and gas to escape during operation leading to a fire at the well site. Plaintiff asserted economic losses in excess of $1,400,000. Joe successfully argued that plaintiff failed elicit sufficient expert opinion to support the defect claim and further spoliated evidence in discarding the subject well head.; Prevailed on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer in favor of the mother of a mentally ill individual who went on shooting spree at a national behavioral health care provider. The shooting incident resulted in one death and personal injuries to several others and received a great deal of media attention. Plaintiffs claimed the shooters mother should be liable because she 'took charge' of her adult son and voluntarily assumed a duty to control him. Joe argued that the mother had no duty to control her adult son under Restatement (Second) of Torts Sections 319 and 324A. In a 26-page opinion dismissing all claims against the mother, the judge held that 'tort law does not impose a duty on a parent of an adult child to control the conduct of that child so as to prevent the child from causing physical harm to another.'; Obtained a defense verdict of behalf of the County of Beaver in a case involving an individual who was injured by fencing while playing softball. Joe effectively established the lack of any actionable defect.; Published Works: 'Does the Fair Share Act Apply to Faultless Plaintiffs? A Defense Position in the Wake of Spencer v. Johnson,' CounterPoint, newsletter of the PA Defense Institute, December 2021.