Haworth Rossman & Gerstman, LLC

A SAMPLING OF OUR OTHER RESULTS

Brown v. Modell´s Sporting Goods, Inc. et al. Abigail Rossman, Scott Haworth and Ilene Goodman obtained dismissal on behalf of Modell´s Sporting Goods, Inc. et al. in Brown v. Modell´s Sporting Goods, Inc. et al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (2016). Plaintiff, a resident of Chappaqua, New York, sought to represent a nationwide, fifty-state class of consumers who purchased Swagway Smart Balancing Electric Skateboards, known to the public as hoverboards. Plaintiff alleged that his hoverboard "burst into flames" approximately 45 minutes after he plugged it in to charge, igniting the packaging materials and causing damage to his home. The Complaint alleged that the hoverboards, manufactured by Swagway and sold by Modell´s and others, were unsafe for their intended use, and that Swagway and Modell´s failed to disclose the alleged defect. Modell´s moved for dismissal on several grounds, including inability to certify the alleged nationwide class of consumers, failure to plead with particularity, lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The Court held that the Northern District of Indiana lacked personal jurisdiction over Modell´s, a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in New York and no retail stores in Indiana. The Court held that Modell´s purchase of the hoverboards from an Indiana manufacturer and operation of a website accessible to consumers in the State of Indiana were insufficient contacts upon which to base personal jurisdiction.

Inoa v. CEI, et al., New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County (2016). Richard Barber and Dominique Romano recently obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a leading manufacturer of personal care and household products. The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on snow and ice outside the manufacturing facility. Through aggressive written discovery prior to costly depositions, we were able to demonstrate that, pursuant to contract or common law, our client could not as a matter of law bear liability for the alleged dangerous condition.

Ramirez v. Solar Management, New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County (2015). Richard Barber obtained summary judgment on behalf of a kitchenware distribution company in a matter arising out of an assault that occurred in the parking lot of the business. Plaintiff was placed at the distribution company´s business by a temporary staffing agency nearly a decade prior to the subject incident. Plaintiff was assaulted by a non-party assailant in the common area parking lot while reporting for work. The distribution company shared the parking lot with all other building tenants and security was provided by the co-defendant premises property owner. Following extensive discovery and motion practice, summary judgment was granted to the distribution company as the court held that plaintiff was a special employee of the distribution company. Accordingly, plaintiff was unable to maintain her lawsuit against the company pursuant to New Jersey´s workers´ compensation law. It was specifically argued that (i) an implied contract of hire existed between the defendant distribution company and plaintiff over the years that she repeatedly reported to the company´s business for work; (ii) the work performed by plaintiff in packaging goods was the same business the distribution company was involved in; (iii) the distribution company controlled all aspects of the plaintiff´s work; (iv) plaintiff´s wages were effectively reimbursed by the distribution company to the non-party staffing agency; and (v) the distribution company had the right to fire plaintiff. Thus, all five factors of the special employment analysis as set forth in Kelly v. Geriatric and Medical Services, Inc., 287 N.J.Super. 567, 571-572, 671 A.2d 631 (App.Div. 1996) aff´d o.b., 147 N.J. 42, 685 A.2d 943 (1996), were fulfilled.

Attique v. Carttronics, New York State Supreme Court, Queens County (2016). Richard Barber obtained summary judgment on behalf of a shopping cart loss prevention system manufacturer in a product liability and negligence matter arising out of a trip and fall over a wire component that had become exposed on a sidewalk. The wire, which was part of the loss prevention system, was intended to be buried beneath a concrete sidewalk. Prior to the accident, the wire became exposed above the sidewalk grade, causing plaintiff to trip and fall when she attempted to walk across the sidewalk. The loss prevention system was designed and manufactured by Carttronics. Summary judgment was granted to Carttronics because plaintiff was unable to establish that the system was defectively designed or manufactured or that Carttronics was otherwise responsible for maintenance, repair or installation of the system and/or the raised wire involved in the accident.

Figueroa v. Johnny´s Landscaping, New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County (2016). Richard Barber and Scott Haworth obtained summary judgment on behalf of a snow removal company in a matter arising out of a slip and fall on snow and ice. Summary judgment was granted to Johnny´s Landscaping as the firm successfully argued that their client had no duty to remediate snow and/or ice from the sidewalk upon which plaintiff fell on the morning of the accident prior to its occurrence. More specifically, the firm contended that their client´s obligation to service the subject sidewalk was not triggered on the date of the accident due to minimal snow accumulations and that the course of conduct engaged in by their client did not support the argument that they had a proactive duty to service the premises during any winter precipitation event.

Triangle Plumbing v. Gerard Packing, New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County). Richard Barber obtained a voluntary dismissal on behalf of a plumbing component manufacturer in a product liability matter arising out of a flood of a new medical arts building. The flood occurred when a commercial plumbing company improperly installed a hot water circulator, causing several million dollars of damages to the premises. As the parties were unable to establish that the firm´s client manufactured or was otherwise involved in the chain of distribution of the failed plumbing component and there was no evidence that the failed component was defectively designed or manufactured, the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims and cross-claims against the firm´s client.

Plaintiff v. Swimming Pool Manufacturer, Superior Court, Monmouth County (2014)
Scott Haworth and Richard Barber obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a swimming pool manufacturer in a product liability action arising out of a catastrophic diving incident. The lawsuit arose from an accident that occurred at a party when the plaintiff, who was a guest of a homeowner, dove head-first into the shallow end of an in-ground pool rendering him a quadriplegic. The plaintiff alleged that the pool lacked adequate warnings advising about the dangers associated with diving into a swimming pool. Plaintiff additionally alleged that the pool was defectively designed because it lacked certain components that would have made the changes in the pool´s elevation more easily visible. Through aggressive advocacy, the threat of a motion based on plaintiff´s frivolous claims and without the expense of a dispositive motion, based on the fact and expert discovery in the record, we successfully argued to all parties that any theory of liability could not be attributed to our client.

Dockery v. Universal Beauty Products et al., Superior Court, Mercer County (2014)
Scott Haworth and Abigail Rossman obtained summary judgment in a product liability matter entitled Dockery v. Universal Beauty Products et al. Plaintiff alleged design and warnings defects in hair bond remover manufactured by our client caused catastrophic burn injuries when her head and other parts of her body were injured while using our client´s product. The court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff´s claim that the product´s labeling was defective because it stated that it was for "Professional Use Only." Plaintiff´s design defect claim was dismissed as a matter of law based upon both proximate causation and the inadmissible "net" opinion of plaintiff´s liability expert. An Offer of Judgment had previously been filed against our client and the co-defendant for the limits of their respective insurance policies, $1 million each. The Appellate Division rejected plaintiff´s motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal based on the court´s dismissal of warnings claims as to each defendant.

Harriett Spitaleri v. Medical Depot Inc., Superior Court, Middlesex County (2014)
Nora Coleman successfully obtained an early dismissal of plaintiff´s complaint, with prejudice. Plaintiff claimed that a medical device manufactured by our client was defective and caused her to fall and sustain personal injuries. Plaintiff asserted a strict liability claim as well as a claim for punitive damages. Through aggressive discovery and investigation, we demonstrated that plaintiff could not sustain any cause of action against our client and obtained a full dismissal prior to commencing depositions.

Plaintiff v. Heavy Truck Manufacturer, Superior Court, Monmouth County (2014)
Scott Haworth and Barry Gerstman obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a sanitation truck manufacturer sued in a product liability action. The case involved a sanitation worker who sustained a significant hand injury including a traumatic amputation while using the truck´s compacting system. Following a motion for summary judgment based on lack of successor liability, plaintiff agreed to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against our client. The litigation continued against the remaining defendants.

Plaintiff v. Seat Belt Designer/Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Orleans County (2013)
Partner Barry Gerstman obtained a dismissal in favor of his client, a Japanese seat belt manufacturer, in a product liability/crashworthiness case involving a plaintiff who alleged significant permanent lower leg injuries following an ATV accident. Plaintiff alleged that the seat belt was defectively designed in that it was placed in the wrong location causing it to unlatch unexpectedly in the accident. After initial investigation and discovery, we moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Court could not establish personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant who did not ship any products to New York or otherwise conduct business in the state. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case against the manufacturer finding that the company did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in New York and therefore could not be subject to jurisdiction in this forum. The case remains pending against the ATV manufacturer.

Plaintiff v. Seat Belt Designer/Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Nassau County (2013)
Partner Barry Gerstman obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in favor of his client, a Canadian-based seat belt manufacturer, in a product liability/crashworthiness case involving a plaintiff who alleged traumatic brain injury in a single vehicle accident wherein he struck his head on the vehicle´s steering column. Plaintiff alleged that the seat belt was defectively designed in that it failed to properly restrain him in the accident. After initial investigation and discovery, we moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Court could not establish personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant who did not ship any products to New York and who otherwise did not conduct business in New York. In response to our motion, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action against our client with prejudice. The case remains pending against the vehicle manufacturer.

Plaintiff v. Mall Owner and Engineering Firm, Superior Court, Middlesex County (2013)
Partner Nora Coleman obtained a dismissal with prejudice of this catastrophic tort matter, in which plaintiff alleged that a mall parking lot's configuration contributed to his motorcycle accident, resulting in paraplegia and permanent institutionalization. Plaintiff, who settled prior to suit with the driver of the car that struck him, later filed two additional complaints against the mall owner and engineering firm, one of which was timely pursuant to the statute of limitations but never properly served, and one of which was untimely pursuant to the statute of limitations even though it was properly served. While a motion to dismiss was filed immediately upon first receiving plaintiff’s complaint, the motion was denied based on plaintiff's counsel's argument that plaintiff was “incompetent,” thereby tolling the statute of limitations. While discovery was ongoing, aggressive investigation revealed that plaintiff's counsel had made the opposite argument to a different judge in connection with plaintiff's settlement with the driver, and also that plaintiff had signed a Power of Attorney empowering a relative to act on his behalf long before the statute of limitations had run. Based on this newly-discovered evidence, our client's motion for reconsideration of the prior motion to dismiss was granted, and plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Rodriguez v. Athenium House Corp. et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2013)
Scott Haworth and Barry Gerstman obtained summary judgment in a matter involving plaintiff, a U.S. Postal Letter Carrier who alleged that, while delivering mail at a residential Manhattan building, a bulletin board located above the building mailboxes fell, striking him on the head. Plaintiff alleged severe traumatic brain injury, resulting in a permanent inability to work, as well as significant psychiatric and physical damages. In addition to retaining a mechanical engineer to testify regarding the allegedly defective manner in which the bulletin board was installed, plaintiff planned to call experts in pain management, physiatry, psychology, psychiatry and economics. In granting the defendants' summary judgment, United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain held that defendant's retention of general supervisory powers was insufficient to defeat defendant's "independent contractor" defense regarding the installation of the bulletin board. Additionally, Judge Swain held that absent speculation, plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the existence of notice. Additionally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Commercial Building Owner v. Municipality, Superior Court, Union County
Scott Haworth, Barry Gerstman and Richard Barber obtained summary judgment on behalf of a New Jersey municipality in a lawsuit arising out of the construction of a retaining wall located on a portion of the plaintiff's premises. The wall was constructed in connection with state-approved improvements to a natural wetland creek and culvert that ran between the plaintiff's property and the municipality's property. The plaintiff alleged that the construction of the retaining wall damaged his building and constituted negligence, trespass and an unconstitutional taking of his property. Following oral argument of the municipality's motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the entirety of plaintiff's allegations and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court held that because the work performed was pre-approved by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the municipality was immune from liability pursuant to the Design or Plan Immunity provision of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act. The court further held that, although the retaining wall was built above-ground on plaintiff's property, it did not change the natural flow of water, did not constitute an encumbrance upon the land and therefore could not be the basis for a trespass or inverse condemnation claim. In addition, the court opined that because the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that he was denied reasonably beneficial use of his property, the inverse condemnation claim was not actionable.

Plaintiff v. Major Telecommunications Company, Supreme Court, New York County
Scott Haworth and Abigail Bowen obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major telecommunications company. Plaintiff claimed that extremely high temperatures emanating from the company's cell site, located adjacent to his office in a residential Manhattan building caused him to suffer injury when he passed-out while atop an A-frame ladder in the room housing the cell site and fell, striking his head. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for negligence as well as alleged violations of Labor Law Sections 240(1), 241(6) and 200. The court agreed with our client's argument that plaintiff's activities did not involve any of the protected activities enumerated under Labor Law Section 240(1). As to Labor Law Section 241(6), our client successfully contended that no provision of New York's Industrial Code could be shown to have been violated and that contrary to plaintiff's assertions, alleged violations of OSHA are not relevant to a Labor Law Section 241(6) determination. Regarding Labor Law Section 200 and plaintiff's cause of action for common law negligence, the court agreed that the telecommunications company did not authorize, supervise or exercise control over plaintiff's work in the cell site room and that any finding that its negligence played any role in the happening of the accident, which was alleged to have resulted in severe traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficits and a permanent inability to work, would be inherently speculative.

Plaintiff v. Pool Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Rockland County
This product liability matter involved an allegation that plaintiff sustained severe cervical spinal injuries when he slipped from a pool ladder, causing him to impact the bottom of an above-ground swimming pool. Our firm was assigned to represent the pool manufacturer when discovery was nearly complete, by which time plaintiff had asserted violations of numerous pool standards, standards related to the pool's ladder and specific theories of failure to warn. Our firm immediately retained a biomechanical engineer highly regarded in the ladder industry and participated in accident reconstruction testing that demonstrated that plaintiff's injury could only have occurred if he dove into the 36 inch deep pool. Additional experts were retained in the fields of warnings and pool standards, whose qualifications are beyond reproach. Lastly, we deposed hospital personnel whose testimony established that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Notwithstanding several multimillion dollar settlement demands, the case was settled for a nominal amount shortly before trial.

Plaintiff v. Construction Consulting Firm, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Partner Barry Gerstman obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a construction consulting firm sued in a negligence and wrongful death matter arising out of the death of a 29-year-old dockworker killed during pile driving operations at a major public works project. After the deposition of Mr. Gerstman's client, he was able to negotiate a dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Haworth Rossman & Gerstman, LLC's client. The litigation continues against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff is seeking a seven figure settlement as well as punitive damages.

Plaintiff v. Trouble Light Sellers, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Plaintiff sustained severe burn injuries as the result of an explosion that occurred while using a trouble light in the course of his employment as a mechanic. The light was being used in connection with the repair of a vehicle, which involved removal and drainage of the vehicle's fuel tank. Scott Haworth and Barry Gerstman represented the company that sold the trouble light to a well-known auto parts distributor that sold the product to the plaintiff's employer. Following settlement of the matter, with Haworth Rossman & Gerstman's client contributing substantially less than the other defendants, the defendants moved for summary judgment as to their respective cross-claims for defense, indemnity and insurance coverage. The cross-claims involved complex issues involving product liability law, the interpretation of indemnity contracts and insurance coverage. The court dismissed the cross-claims of the well-known auto parts distributor that sold the trouble light to plaintiff's employer and granted summary judgment to Scott Haworth and Barry Gerstman's client.

Plaintiffs v. Construction Materials Manufacturer, Superior Court, Morris County
Nora Coleman and Margot Wilensky obtained summary judgment on behalf of a global manufacturer of specialty flooring systems installed at the entrance to a supermarket. Plaintiffs claimed that the system's installation instructions were unclear, resulting in improper installation, which caused the plaintiff to sustain serious injuries while traversing the flooring. Through deposition, we established that plaintiffs' expert's opinion was unreliable and unsupported by the factual evidence, and failed to establish a causal connection between any defect or negligence and the plaintiff's accident. The summary judgment motion argued that plaintiffs' expert's opinion was "net opinion," and that without any other evidence, plaintiffs could not establish any product liability or negligence claims against our client. The court found the expert's opinion to be inadmissible, and dismissed all claims and cross-claims against our client. DisposItive motions brought by the various co-defendants were denied.

Plaintiff v. Self-Storage Company, Superior Court, Hudson County
Scott Haworth and Nora Coleman successfully moved at the inception of litigation to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on a pre-answer basis. The complaint asserted wrongful death claims as a result of injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent at a live-in health care facility. Plaintiff asserted corporate negligence claims against our client, a self-storage company owned by the same principals as the decedent's health care facility, and attempted to "pierce the corporate veil." Our motion to dismiss argued that plaintiff could not sustain a cause of action for corporate negligence against the self-storage company, as it was not a hospital or health maintenance organization, and was not in a position to prevent medical mistakes and patient injuries. The motion also argued that plaintiff could not establish any abuse of the corporate form or injurious consequence thereof. The court dismissed all claims against our client with prejudice.

Fire Loss Victims v. Landlord, Superior Court, Bergen County
Scott Haworth and Richard Barber represented a landlord in a matter in which plaintiffs asserted millions of dollars in damages arising from a warehouse fire that resulted in the destruction of goods owned by multiple plaintiff apparel manufacturers. Plaintiffs asserted that the warehouse racking system was defective because it was installed too close to overhead radiant heaters used to heat the warehouse. Plaintiffs also asserted defects in the warehouse sprinkler system that, it was claimed, increased the damage to the stored goods. Using our substantial experience defending matters involving fires, explosions and sprinkler systems, we demonstrated that no possible cause of action could lie against our client based upon the theories asserted regarding the sprinkler system or the warehouse racking system. We further demonstrated our client's entitlement to indemnity and defense from our client's tenant and its insurance carrier, notwithstanding that the insurance carrier had issued a denial of coverage. The case was settled for millions of dollars pre-trial with our client's contribution being paid by our client's tenant and its insurer. Moreover, a significant portion of our client's legal fees were reimbursed by the tenant, its insurer and its insurer's broker.

Plaintiff v. Crane Company, Superior Court, Union County
Plaintiff construction worker sustained catastrophic injuries when he was crushed between a precast concrete plank and an I-beam. Scott Haworth represented the crane company and crane operator, alleged to have negligently lowered the precast plank into the building's superstructure. Through deposition of plaintiff's expert engineer, Mr. Haworth established the unreliability and "net" nature of plaintiff's expert's opinions and obtained summary judgment, which was upheld on appeal. The remaining defendants - who refused to join in the motion - paid a substantial settlement on the eve of trial.

Plaintiff v. Medical Device Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Kings County
Product liability matter involving a motorized wheelchair. Plaintiff and third-party plaintiff contended the wheelchair was improperly designed, causing it to flip-over backwards while being utilized by a disabled person. Scott Haworth obtained summary judgment at close of discovery. Appeal discontinued following refusal on the part of defendant to settle prior to the appeal being perfected.

Plaintiff v. Industrial Maintenance Company, Superior Court, Middlesex County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a large industrial maintenance company in a case where plaintiff claimed that exposure to isocyanates caused him to develop severe asthma.

Plaintiff v. Medical Device Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Bronx County
Product liability/medical malpractice matter involving a medical bed. Following depositions of plaintiff, multiple eyewitnesses, personnel from the defendant dealer/installer and defendant, Scott Haworth obtained a voluntary dismissal. Case was subsequently settled by the remaining defendants.

Plaintiff v. Cosmetics Manufacturer, Superior Court, Essex County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a leading manufacturer of hair care products, in a case where plaintiff claimed that her decedent contracted dermatomyositis, causing her death, due to exposure to a chemical relaxer.

Plaintiff v. Hotel Operator, Supreme Court, New York County
Labor Law matter involving a chandelier that fell while being erected during set-up for a wedding at a classic New York hotel. Plaintiff claimed severe closed head, psychiatric and orthopedic injuries. Scott Haworth and Nora Coleman obtained summary judgment on behalf of the defendant hotel and premises owner only, based upon lack of control and failure of plaintiff to satisfy the requirements for imposition of liability under Labor Law §240.

Plaintiff v. Envelope Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Bronx County
Plaintiff alleged the traumatic amputation of multiple fingers on her dominant hand during her employment with our client, while utilizing industrial equipment utilized to manufacture envelopes. Following several summary judgment motions and renewed motions, the trial court granted summary judgment based upon the product alteration doctrine of Robinson v. Reed-Prentice and plaintiff's inability to make out a warnings defect claim under Liriano v. Hobart.

Plaintiff v. Apartment Complex, Superior Court, Middlesex County
Stove-tip case involving catastrophic burns to an 18 month old child. Scott Haworth was retained by the excess insurer (excess of $250,000) on the eve of the close of discovery. Mr. Haworth successfully obtained all necessary extensions to depose all fact witnesses, retain an expert and produce a videotaped reconstruction that disproved plaintiff's theory as to how the accident occurred. On the eve of trial, plaintiff accepted a long-since-offered, nominal settlement, within the limits of the primary insurance policy.

Plaintiff v. Industrial Machinery Manufacturer, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Product liability matter involving multiple finger amputations to dominant hand resulting from a punch press accident, handled by Scott Haworth. Case settled for $7,500 during pendency of summary judgment motion. Motion followed deposition of plaintiff's expert which focused on expert's inability to proffer reliable opinion as to a causally-related failure to guard and the manufacturer's compliance with the ANSI B15 standard.

Plaintiff v. Medical Device Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Richmond County
Plaintiff nursing home resident alleged design defect of a motorized wheelchair. Summary judgment granted to defendant only, based upon unreliability and inadmissible nature of plaintiff's expert's opinion.

Plaintiff v. Roofing Company, Superior Court, Bergen County
Product liability wrongful death matter handled by Scott Haworth involving industrial HVAC worker who fell approximately 23 feet while attempting to utilize a roof hatch to gain access to the roof. Plaintiff claimed the hatch was defectively designed, resulting in awkward movement on the part of the decedent as he attempted to exit the hatch. Utilizing computerized reconstruction analysis, we demonstrated that the accident could not have occurred as theorized by the plaintiff, relieving our client of any potential liability. Shortly prior to trial, plaintiff provided a voluntary dismissal and went on to utilize the liability expert retained by our client in aid of his case against the other defendants.

Plaintiff v. Medical Device Manufacturer, Supreme Court, Oneida County
Barry Gerstman obtained summary judgment in a medical device case involving a spinal implant. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff could not show a proximate causal relationship between the injuries claimed and the performance of the product.

Plaintiff v. Manufacturer of Heavy Machinery, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Representing a Japanese manufacturer, Barry Gerstman authored a summary judgment motion that resulted in the dismissal of a multimillion-dollar product liability claim involving a forklift. Earlier in the case, Mr. Gerstman authored a Daubert motion that resulted in the preclusion of plaintiff's design defect expert.

Plaintiff v. Cosmetics Manufacturer, Superior Court, Bergen County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a leading manufacturer of hair care products in a case where the teenage plaintiff sustained burns to the scalp resulting in permanent hair loss and scarring.

Plaintiff v. Foreign Construction Manager, Supreme Court, Kings County
Obtained voluntary dismissal on behalf of a leading Canadian construction manager, along with co-insurance from the co-defendant subcontractor, in a case where the plaintiff, a pedestrian passing by a construction site, was hit in the head by a falling power tool..

Plaintiff v. Heavy Machinery Manufacturer, Superior Court, Middlesex County
Obtained early dismissal on behalf of a manufacturer of large packing/sorting systems in a case where plaintiff's hand became stuck in a conveyer belt, resulting in finger amputations and reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

Plaintiff v. Fitness Equipment Manufacturer, Civil Court, Bronx County
Obtained voluntary dismissal on behalf of a leading manufacturer of fitness equipment in a case where plaintiff claimed to have been injured while using a stationary bicycle.

Plaintiff v. Medical Device Manufacturer, Superior Court, Middlesex County
Scott Haworth obtained voluntary dismissal on behalf of a leading manufacturer of durable medical devices in a case where plaintiff alleged that an electric hospital bed caused a fire, resulting in one death and property damage.

Construction Materials Manufacturer v. Subcontractor, Superior Court, Union County
Obtained a Confession of Judgment on behalf of a global manufacturer of construction materials in a case where a subcontractor failed to remit payment for seven-figure debt.

Plaintiff v. Cosmetics Manufacturer, Superior Court, Monmouth County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a leading manufacturer of hair care products, in a case where plaintiff claimed to have been exposed to toxic fumes when a fire occurred during the packaging process.

Plaintiff v. Hotel, Supreme Court, New York County
Scott Haworth and Nora Coleman obtained summary judgment on behalf of one of the world's largest luxury hotel chains, in a case where plaintiff alleged claims under New York Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6) and 200, and resulting cognitive impairment, after being struck on the head by a decorative flower chandelier hung from the ceiling in preparation for a wedding.

Plaintiff v. Apparel Company, Supreme Court, New York County
Obtained contractual indemnification, including attorneys' fees, on behalf of one of Canada's leading women's apparel companies, in a case where plaintiff alleged claims under New York Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6) and 200 after falling from a scaffold at a construction site.

Plaintiff v. Building Owner and Clothing Designer, Supreme Court, Kings County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the building owner and one of the world's best-known clothing designers, in a case where plaintiff alleged claims under New York Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6) and 200 after the ladder on which she was working almost fell over.

Plaintiff v. Exercise Equipment Manufacturer, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Scott Haworth obtained voluntary dismissal on behalf of a leading manufacturer of exercise equipment in a case where plaintiffs alleged that a fire, which destroyed their house, started in a treadmill.

Plaintiff v. Owner/Operator of Tractor-Trailer, Superior Court, Burlington County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the owner and operator of a tractor-trailer involved in a major, 11-vehicle accident in southern New Jersey.

Plaintiff v. Heavy Machinery Distributor, Superior Court, Ocean County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a large distributor of heavy machinery in a case where plaintiff claimed that an alleged defect in a press-brake caused him to amputate several fingers.

Plaintiff v. Medical Device Manufacturer, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Scott Haworth obtained defense and indemnification on behalf of a leading manufacturer of durable medical devices in a case where plaintiff claimed that an alleged defect in an electric wheelchair caused his injuries..

Plaintiff v. Global Consulting Company, Superior Court, Monmouth County
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a publicly-traded global consulting company in a case where plaintiff claimed that she sustained injury in the course and scope of her employment.