“Full Service” is an often-used cliché describing law firms and practice groups, but it truly describes Turner Padget’s Product Liability Group. With five offices throughout South Carolina, we cover all geographic locations. Local relationships with Bench and Bar Members throughout the state are critical in assessing, evaluating and ultimately litigating product liability claims and suits. Our lawyers span the experience scale, from first year associates to shareholders with over 25 years of legal experience.
Whether it is catastrophic, complex product litigation or complicated insurance related issues, our team can meet the need. Having successfully defended numerous multi-week trials in both state and Federal court, the Turner Padget Product Liability Group has proven its abilities over and over. All cases are not created equally, however, and therefore having the flexibility to match the size and complexity of the case with the appropriate lawyers within any geographic location in the state enables us to provide the most effective representation in the most efficient manner, a service offering of which our entire firm is proud.
Members of our practice group serve as statewide and regional counsel for product manufacturers ranging from automobile/boat/ATV and their component part manufacturers to all manufacturers of various machinery. Members also possess a great deal of experience defending building product liability cases for product manufacturers, contractors and/or sub-contractors. Our product liability lawyers are regularly involved in successful mediations of matters pending in either state or federal court. Whatever the need, Turner Padget is prepared to be your “go to” product liability firm in South Carolina.
In the last two years, Turner Padget has successfully defended through verdict four multi-week trials alleging design defects in single and multi-car automobile accidents. We have had numerous product matters resolved, both big and small, through mediation.
In a significant preemption case, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on behalf of a major automotive manufacturer. Appellant in this product liability case alleged the manufacturer breached certain warranties by installing automotive side window glazing that shattered upon impact and failed to retain vehicle occupants in a rollover collision. In support of its summary judgment motion, the automaker argued Appellant's common law claims were preempted because they conflicted and interfered with the intent of Congress to provide a range of automotive glass/glazing options as codified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205. After reviewing opinions that had both upheld and rejected federal preemption in this context, the court agreed that the more persuasive opinions were those that recognized preemption, and thus the court held that permitting Appellant's case to go forward would "stand as an obstacle to achieving the purposes and objectives of Regulation 205." Priester v. Cromer, et al., Op. No. 26846 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed August 2, 2010) (Shearhouse Adv. Sh. No. 30 at 12).
- Daimler Chrysler
- Ford Motor Company
- General Motors
- Home Depot
- Hyundai Motor America
- Kia Motors
- Land Rover
- Stingray Boats