Products Liability Litigation
MF&L has extensive experience representing product designers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in products liability actions. Our attorneys defend cases involving aircraft component parts, farm equipment, televisions and cell phones, home appliances, construction equipment, food additives, medical appliances, and a variety of other consumer products. Our attorneys defend products liability cases involving catastrophic injury and wrongful death in all state and federal courts.
Products Liability Litigation Team
Related Articles
Track Record of Excellence
Alta Refrigeration, Inc. v.
Americold Logisitics 301 Ga. App. 738, 688 S.E.2d 658 (2009). MF&L obtained judgment on behalf of an ammonia refrigeration service company, reversing the trial court ruling which had denied summary judgment. The case involved multiple claims of liability including defects, but the deciding issue was based on the borrowed servant doctrine. The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffâs employee was not a borrowed servant of the defendant where the plaintiffâs employee alone selected the forklift which failed and caused an explosion.
Deere & Company v. JPS Development, Inc.
264 Ga. App. 672, 592 S.E.2d 175 (2003). MF&L obtained a dismissal of plaintiffâs breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation case, reversing the trial court ruling which had denied the motion to dismiss. Â The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff corporation could not bring any products liability or breach of warranty claims against the manufacturer because the plaintiff corporation had been dissolved for over two years when it filed the lawsuit.
Cash et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.
342 Ga. App. 735 (2017) MF&L obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major electronics manufacturer in a wrongful death lawsuit filed in Gwinnett County. The plaintiffs had alleged that the television at issue was defective and started a fire in the home. Tragically, a father and son were killed in the blaze. However, the firmâs Daubert motion to exclude the expert testimony of the plaintiffâs design/causation engineer was granted, and summary judgment was also awarded by the trial court. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Georgia, noting in part that many other potential ignition sources existed.