Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. logo.

GRSM Secures Victory for Power Strip Manufacturer in Florida Appeal, Affirming Summary Judgment and Expert Exclusions

The Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani New York Product Liability team, including Senior Counsel Max H. Trembitsky and Partner Robert W. F. Beckmann, secured a victory in the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, on behalf of a power strip manufacturer. The Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision to exclude the plaintiff’s experts and grant summary judgment in favor of the defense.

The case, initially covered in an article by GRSM, involved a lawsuit in which a 15-year-old plaintiff suffered severe electrical burns when a metallic necklace he was wearing came into contact with the exposed prongs of an iPhone charger partially plugged into a power strip. He demanded $1 million to settle. GRSM successfully challenged the anticipated testimony of two of the plaintiff’s electrical engineering experts, arguing their claims about the lack of short circuit protection were unsupported by industry standards, scientific evidence, or reliable methodology. GRSM then secured summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff failed to establish a product defect or causation, as the electrical outlet powering the power strip had short circuit protection that would have prevented the injury.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Circuit Court erred by: (1) failing to make a specific factual finding to preclude the plaintiff’s first expert, (2) excluding the plaintiff’s second expert based on criticisms of his testing methods, and (3) accepting GRSM’s arguments for summary judgment. GRSM countered that the plaintiff failed to preserve these issues for appeal and that the Circuit Court acted within its discretion in excluding the plaintiff’s experts and granting summary judgment. Additionally, GRSM argued that the trial court’s order was correct in every respect, showing that the plaintiff’s experts were grossly deficient and that excluding their opinions was not an abuse of discretion. Finally, GRSM asserted that any potential error in excluding the plaintiff’s first expert was harmless, as his flawed opinions did not create a genuine issue of material fact on causation.

This successful outcome was obtained with the assistance of team leader, Partner Gregg Minkin, as well as Paralegals Julia Lord and Stephen Bomberger, highlighting the proficiency of GRSM’s Product Liability practice.

Learn more about this case in the court’s decision.