Video of Closing Statements
Click on a link below to play the video of the attorney delivering their closing statement.
Humeston v. Merck Trial - 09/15/05 to 11/03/05
Pharmaceutical product liability trial against Merck for the painkiller drug Vioxx held in New Jersey September 2005.
Plantiffs granted a retrial in 2006.
McDarby v. Merck Trial - 03/06/06 to 04/11/06
Pharmaceutical product liability trial against Merck for the painkiller drug Vioxx.
Doherty v. Merck Trial - 06/05/06 to 07/13/06
Pharmaceutical product liability trial against Merck for the painkiller drug Vioxx.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Grossberg v. Merck Trial - 06/27/06 to 08/02/06
Stewart Grossberg used the pain reliever Vioxx for several years and suffered a heart attack. The plaintiff asserted that Merck put Vioxx on the market with inadequate testing, and Merck concealed from doctors Merck's knowledge that Vioxx, a Cox-2 inhibitor, would cause adverse vascular events, such as strokes and heart attacks.
The defense argued that heart disease is exceptionally common, and that Vioxx played no role in the plaintiff's heart attack. Instead, the plaintiff had many risk factors for heart disease, including his age, family history, lack of exercise, and high cholesterol.
According to the defense, the very people that the plaintiffs accuse of covering up the truth about Vioxx actually took the medicines themselves, because they believed it was safe.
The jury ruled for the defendant, finding that Merck was not negligent, did not fail to warn of a substantial danger, did not make a negligent misrepresentation, and did not intentionally fail to disclose an important fact to the plaintiff's doctor.
Watson v. Ford Trial - 07/17/06 to 08/06/06
A sudden acceleration Ford Explorer car crash left a passenger dead and the 17 year-old driver with a broken neck, brain injury, and paralyzed, allegedly due to a defective cruise control and defective safety belts.
The plaintiff alleged that she tapped the cruise control in the 1995 Explorer (UN105), and the vehicle started to accelerate uncontrollably to 70 or 80 miles per hour, and eventually fishtailed and rolled over.
The vehicle's TRW safety belts allegedly came undone due to an inertial unlatch defect, ejecting the plaintiff and another passenger.
During a prior episode of sudden acceleration involving the same vehicle, mechanic D&D Motors allegedly misdiagnosed the cause of the sudden acceleration as due to the driver's side floor mat, which had been placed upside down. Instead, according to the plaintiff, the cruise control malfunctioned due to electromagnetic interference (EMI). The EMI could have been protected against, said the plaintiff, by the use of twisted pairs or an off switch that cut electricity to the cruise control.
The defendant alleged that the vehicle was not under power while it was out of control. The accelerator was not defective, and did not cause the accident. According to the defendant, the vehicle performed well when the 17 year-old driver lost control, and the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt.
The plaintiff alleged that the safety restraint system, the cruise control system, and the Ford Explorer itself as a whole, was unreasonably dangerous.
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on both negligence and product liability claims as to the speed control system, but not the seat belts, awarded total compensatory damages of $18M.
Bronwood v. Tahoe Trial - 01/11/07 to 04/03/07
A private utility provider sued its joint venturer for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract involving the provision of gas and electricity to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (TRI-Center) via a general improvement district (GID). The private utility alleged that its joint venturer secretly negotiated a more lucrative arrangement with a public utility (Sierra Pacific, now NV Energy) that resulted in $30M in wrongful gains to the joint venturer, and cost the private utility $10M in lost profits.
Hermans v. Merck Trial - 01/22/07 to 03/12/07
Pharmaceutical products liability trial against Merck for heart attacks allegedly caused by the painkiller drug Vioxx.
According to the plaintiff, Merck ignored warnings, refused to conduct certain tests, tested around the warnings, and canceled critical investigations. In addition, Merck allegedly misreported test results and put false material in the hands of doctors.
The defense argued that Vioxx was not a substantial cause in Fred Humeston's heart attack, and that Merck did nothing wrong in marketing Vioxx. According to the defense, it wasn't even clear that the plaintiff was using Vioxx at the time of his heart attack, and he had other risk factors for heart attack, such as a sedentary lifestyle and a history of stress and anxiety. Further, a heart attack warning would not have had any effect, the defense said, because Ibuprofen has a heart attack warning, and the plaintiff took Ibuprofen even after having his heart attack.
The jury found for the defendant, awarding $20M in compensatory damages, and $27.5M in punitive damages.
Caremark/CVS Merger Litigation Hearing - 02/16/07 to 02/16/07
Two cases regarding the Caremark/CVS Merger - Express Scripts wants Caremark shareholders to nix the CVS proposal announced in a press release an unsolicited competing offer to purchase Caremark; Louisiana seeks to hold the directors of Caremark accountable for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
Al-Lomar v. Wood Hearing - 03/23/07 to 03/23/07
Plaintiff seeking to restrain Defendants from using Plaintiff's trademarks, violating the non-competition agreement, for unfair and deceptive trade practices and to recover damages.
Banford v. Aldrich Chemical Trial - 04/16/07 to 04/25/07
Class action nuisance claim based on September 2003 chemical plant explosion of highly toxic nitric oxide, which caused the evacuation of 1500 homes (one-mile radius).
Plaintiffs sought compensation for being temporarily displaced. The trial considered whether each plaintiff was injured, and if so, the amount of damages.