Bay County Jury Delivers Defense Verdict for Tile Manufacturer in Product Liability Trial

CSK Defense Team
Pensacola Managing Partner Randall Rogers
Pensacola Partner Grayson Miller

Case Summary
This case arose from a slip-and-fall incident outside a county government building in Bay County. CSK represented the Defendant, the company which manufactured and designed the tile installed at the property. The Plaintiff alleged that the tile was unsafe defective and asserted claims based on manufacturing and design defects, negligence, and failure to warn.

The governmental entity originally named in the lawsuit resolved its involvement before trial. The remaining claims proceeded to a five-day jury trial that included testimony from more than 20 witnesses including six experts. At trial, the Plaintiff presented expert testing indicating that the tile’s dynamic coefficient of friction fell below the manufacturer’s specification along with evidence of a permanent ankle injury. The Plaintiff sought approximately $2 million in damages at trial.

Defense Strategy
The CSK Defense Team challenged whether the Plaintiff’s evidence established the elements necessary to impose liability on its client. Through testimony addressing industry standards and the performance of the tile, the defense maintained that the Plaintiff failed to establish either a manufacturing or design defect or a negligent failure to warn.

Outcome
After approximately only 80 minutes of deliberation, the jury found that the Defendant had not placed a tile with a manufacturing or design defect on the market and had not negligently failed to warn of risks associated with the tile. Because the jury answered both liability questions in the Defendant’s favor, it did not proceed to comparative fault or damages.

Following the verdict, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Defendant. The judgment provides that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by the action. The Court also reserved jurisdiction to consider the Defendant’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to an expired and unaccepted Proposal for Settlement.

The result reflects the importance of testing each element of a product liability claim and requiring the Plaintiff to establish liability through sufficient evidence.