William (Skip) O. Martin, Jr.
Biographical Information
William O. Martin, Jr. (known as Skip) is a Senior Partner in the Product Liability & Tort Litigation Practice Group. His practice is national in scope and focuses on the litigation and trial of product liability actions. He serves as national trial counsel for APV North America, Inc. and its various divisions, having successfully defended the company's products in over 30 states, and has represented other clients on both a regional and national basis.
Products in which Mr. Martin has significant experience include, but not limited to: all-terrain vehicles, personal watercraft, snowmobiles, conveyors, pneumatic conveyors, turbo expanders, nitrogen generators, film winders, wire winders, rotary cutters, rotary molders, packaging equipment, mixers, fabric-treating machines, printing presses, gear cutters, saws, locomotive bearings, sporting equipment, automotive parts, plate heat exchangers, valves, freezers, air compressors, construction equipment such as back hoes, front loaders and skid steer loaders, farm equipment, distillation systems, plastic blowmold machines, homogenizers, ovens, and plastic extrusion equipment.
Mr. Martin has also successfully represented clients in fire cases, serious motor vehicle accidents, including automobiles, motorcycles and semi-tractor trailers, construction accidents, railroad crossing collision cases, FELA and Safety Appliance Act cases, asbestos cases and some commercial litigation involving his clients’ products.
Mr. Martin has also been proactive in reducing or eliminating potential litigation for APV and other clients. He has provided numerous educational seminars to employees at facilities throughout the United States as well as England, Denmark and Germany in an effort to educate sales engineers, design engineers and field service technicians regarding the legal process, the differences between American standards such as OSHA and ANSI and European standards requiring a CE mark, design obligations created for manufacturers as a result of ISO 9001 certification, and preventing liability. As a result of his efforts, serious accidents resulting in litigation have been reduced approximately 50% for at least one client. Mr. Martin has also helped in designing an "early warning system" for investigation accidents. He oversees this program which allows the company to learn of a serious accident within 48 hours of the occurrence. Finally, he has helped develop risk/benefit analysis programs for manufacturers.
In order to help young associates improve courtroom skills, in 1991 Mr. Martin developed and implemented at Haight Brown & Bonesteel an intensive six‑week trial technique course. Taught by Mr. Martin every two years, the course covers voir dire, opening statement, evidence, direct examination, cross-examination and closing argument. Classes are two evenings per week, with the first session each week consisting of a lecture on the techniques to be used and the second session each week requiring the participants to demonstrate before a video camera and the other participants the techniques taught several days before.
Representative Experience:
- Kleen v. Flowserve US, Inc. – Plaintiff's decedent died from mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of being exposed to asbestos in and around valves made by the defendant while decedent served aboard a U.S. warship in the early 1950s. Defendant decided to make this a test case and was the only remaining defendant at the time of trial. After a 4 1/2 week trial, after which the jury deliberated for a day and a half, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on all three causes of action.
- Shotts v. Bombardier – While attempting to tow his brother's ATV out of a ravine and up a steep hill, plaintiff's ATV manufactured by Bombardier flipped over, rendering plaintiff a paraplegic. Plaintiff had attached a tow strap to the luggage rack on his ATV rather than the tow hitch located several feet below. Plaintiff contended that Bombardier failed to warn against towing from the luggage rack, relying on a label on a competitor's model which warned against that action. The court granted Bombardier's Motion for a Jury View which required the importation of six amphibious vehicles in order to transport the jury to the accident site. Venued in federal court in Indianapolis, Indiana, the jury returned a complete defense verdict for Bombardier.
- Collings and Terry v. APV – Collings was severely burned and Terry was killed when the contents of a distillation column erupted during a maintenance process. HB&B defended the manufacturer of the distillation column, APV. The case was venued in Chicago, Illinois.
The property owner paid in excess of $13 million to settle plaintiffs’ claims and then sought contribution from APV. After a three-week trial, the jury found that the property owner was 93% at fault, the co-defendant 2% at fault, and APV 5% at fault. Although the verdict was considered by the client to be a success considering the Cook County venue, the client agreed with the recommendation that an appeal be filed. The Appellate Court reversed the verdict as to APV, agreeing with APV's position that the incident was a wildly improbable event and unforeseeable as a result of modifications made to the equipment, and entered judgment in favor of APV and against the property owner.
- Molloy v. Barber Colman – This case, venued in Kentucky, involved the loss of plaintiff’s right arm as a result of becoming entangled in a gear cutting machine manufactured by defendant. HB&B was asked to associate in as trial counsel three weeks before trial. Plaintiff was represented by a Past President of ATLA. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Barber Colman, finding it was not liable for plaintiff’s injury.
- Mellegaard v. APV and Narkaus v. Crompton Corporation – These two separate cases were venued in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, respectively. HB&B represented the defendants. In Mellegaard, plaintiff lost a leg in a floor conveyor. In Narkaus, plaintiff was scalped when she became entangled in a film winder. Applying the Oklahoma statute of repose for improvements to real property, HB&B was able to obtain summary judgment on behalf of both defendants.
- Justice v. APV – Plaintiff lost an arm while working in a bakery in the Appalachian Mountains in Kentucky. HB&B represented the manufacturer of the machine. After a four-day jury trial, the jury returned a defense verdict on behalf of the manufacturer, finding it was not liable for plaintiff’s injuries.
- Medina v. APV – This case involved a fire in a bakery in Michigan. There was a $25 million subrogation claim filed on behalf of the insurer, a second wrongful death case filed, and a third lawsuit filed by Kellogg’s for lost profits. HB&B represented the manufacturer of the oven who allegedly installed the oven too close to the wooden building. All three cases were dismissed pursuant to dispositive motions filed by HB&B. The dismissals were upheld on appeal by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Duval v. Bombardier – HB&B represented Bombardier in this California case where plaintiff’s personal watercraft collided with a boat, causing plaintiff to suffer severe brain damage. After conducting discovery and preparing a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Bombardier, plaintiff’s attorneys voluntarily dismissed the case before the court could rule on the Motion.
- Bickmore v. Eurotherm – Venued in Madison County, Illinois, plaintiff lost a hand that became entangled in a plastic extruding machine manufactured by Eurotherm and used to make shotgun shells. After deposing the plaintiff and plaintiff's employer, in which they compared the operation of the defendant's machine with competitors' machines on the premises, Mr. Martin was advised by plaintiff's attorney that if he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, it would not be contested. The Motion was filed and Eurotherm was dismissed from the case.
- Robinson v. APV Crepaco – Plaintiff was seriously burned when a diverter valve for a plate heat exchanger failed. Pig skin was grafted to the plaintiff to help heal the burns. His medical bills were over $1,000,000. After deposing plaintiff's employer about the operation of the plate heat exchanger and the location and installation of the diverter valve, both plaintiff and his workers' compensation carrier (which had voluntarily asserted a lien against any settlement proceeds or judgment) dismissed APV Crepaco from the lawsuit.
- Weber v. APV – Plaintiff was seriously injured when he fell from a ladder while performing maintenance work which included a plate heat exchanger. There was a nonunion of the bone in his left arm, rendering the left forearm virtually useless. The case was venued in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The total settlement among all defendants was over $1,000,000 with APV contributing no monies and being dismissed from the lawsuit in exchange for a waiver of costs.
- Foreman v. Rexnord – Plaintiff lost his arm in a conveyor manufactured by his employer. Rexnord supplied the parts of the conveyor into which plaintiff's arm became entangled. After deposing the designer of the conveyor, a Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on behalf of Rexnord which was not contested by plaintiff's attorney.
- Palomarez v. Bombardier – Plaintiff suffered severe facial injuries when the personal watercraft upon which she was riding collided with another personal watercraft. Her medical expenses were in excess of $90,000. HB&B represented the manufacturer of the personal watercraft in this Nevada case. After conducting discovery, plaintiffs’ attorneys agreed to settle for their out-of-pocket expenses which was slightly in excess of $20,000. When plaintiff refused to agree to this settlement, HB&B prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment in which the court found there was no liability on behalf of our client.
- Pelkonen v. Bombardier – This case, venued in California, involved a collision between two personal watercraft. Plaintiff lost part of a finger and suffered other damages. HB&B resolved the case on behalf of Bombardier for less than $5,000.
Presentations & Publications
- Manufacturers Of Non-Defective Products Still Not Liable For Those Of Others, May 11, 2010, Los Angeles Daily Journal
- Products Liability/Asbestos Case Alert: Court Holds Component Part Manufacturer Not Responsible For Asbestos-Containing Replacement Parts, April 27, 2010
- Oklahoma Law Applied to Asbestos Claim, March 4, 2010, Los Angeles Daily Journal
- Products Liability/Asbestos Case Alert: California Supreme Court Applies Oklahoma Law To Defeat Mesothelioma Claim, February 23, 2010
